A blog reader who works as an upland peatland specialist has written the following blog.
With the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill passing through the Scottish Parliament we are soon to see a tightening of the regulation around grouse shooting and burning in the Scottish uplands. This is long overdue, but welcome, nonetheless. So many have fought for so long to get to this point; but the Bill is not over the line yet, with changes possible over the coming weeks.
A recent post on this blog highlighted some of the sorts of changes that could be made by pointing to the amendments lodged by Edward Mountain MSP and one of those jumped out as important. It seems innocuous and inconsequential but the suggestion to change the definition of peat depth from 40cm to 60cm does have implications.
Why does that matter so much? It matters because the Bill is designed to offer protection to peatlands and amendments such as this would weaken that protection.
Under the terms of the Bill, an owner or occupier of land will have to apply for a licence to undertake muirburn, but they can only burn for specific reasons and these reasons are different on different types of land. Where the land is peatland, the owner or occupier may apply for a licence for the purpose of restoring the natural environment, preventing or reducing the risk of wildfires, or research. Where the land is not considered to be peatland, they can apply for a licence to burn for sporting, farming, conservation, wildfire management or research purposes. In effect, burning on peatlands is restricted; land managers will not be able to burn on peatlands for sporting or farming purposes.
Consequently, since the Bill is structured to treat peatlands differently, the definition of what is, and what is not, a peatland, really matters. It determines where different sets of rules apply.
At present the Bill defines ‘peatland’ as “land where the soil has a layer of peat with a thickness of more than 40 centimetres” (where “peat” means soil which has an organic content of more than 60%).
In one way this definition does represent an improvement on the status quo because the current Muirburn Code refers to 50cm and the lower the threshold the larger the area that is considered to be peatland where the restricted rules apply. But, more fundamentally, these depth thresholds can have perverse consequences because they create artificial thresholds that don’t really exist. The consequence of this definition is that extensive areas of shallow peat of a depth less than 40cm will effectively be treated as ‘not peatland’, despite the fact that they are functionally part of a peatland and actually the most vulnerable areas. The IUCN Peatland Programme calls these areas the ‘lost peatlands’:
Despite these areas containing substantial carbon stores and often being vital to the wider ecology and hydrological function of connected deeper peat deposits, we, for the bureaucratic purpose of setting rules around burning, say that they are not peatlands. The result is that, under the terms of the Bill, a land manager will legitimately be able to burn on shallow peat for grouse shooting or farming purposes.
The crux of the issue is that the legislation is clearly designed to try and protect peatlands by treating them differently, but at the same time the definition of a peatland limits the benefit.
If we look again at the Edward Mountain suggestion to change the depth definition from 40cm to 60cm, the effect would be to reduce the area that is considered peatland and so reduce the area where the greater restrictions apply. Conversely it would increase the area where burning for sporting and farming purposes would be possible. This would seem to run counter to the intention of the legislation.
Arguably, the best option would be to just stop defining peatlands (for the purposes of burning) by depth and say that we shouldn’t be burning on peat/peaty soil for sporting and farming purposes (noting, of course, that burning for the purpose of nature restoration, wildfire prevention and research would still be allowed). At the time of writing there is still time for this reasonable approach to be taken forward through amendments at Stage 2 or possibly later at Stage 3, so it remains to be seen whether the rhetorical importance that our politicians give to peatlands translates into real decisions in law.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Excellent blog! Well done.
I noted this from the United Kingdom National Committee of the IUCN report on Use of Peat Depths Criteria: world-wide, blanket bog to just shallow depths varying from 30cm to 50cm contain as much stored carbon as the entire world’s tropical rainforests! (Figure 1, page 3).
The idea of this Bill arbitrarily defining ‘peat land’ as having to have a minimum depth of 40 cm (or 60 cm) is really ridiculous, if the Scottish Parliament is trying to use that definition to save stored carbon. They could be condemning relatively vast quantities of stored carbon in Scotland to future burning, just for the sake of a ‘sport’ and this crazy, irrelevant (agricultural), definition.
The report continues to note that neither the Ramsar Convention nor the 2022 UNEP Global Peatlands Assessment make that definition: instead, they say that any area of land with a surface layer of peat is peatland. The laws of physics dictate that burning over shallow peat will worsen our climate crisis, never mind all the other damage it does. And burning all of it (shallow peat) would be equal to burning our rainforests…
I think a far better reason than to facilitate a mere blood sport is required for such a dangerous and damaging activity.
Burning Heather correctly via prescribed muirburn (for any purpose) has no effect on stored carbon in peat, regardless of the depth.
Burning is on its way out – as across the board there is too much variation in good practice (and even the best practice has lots of inherent problems). The industry should for once try and get ahead of public and scientific opinion on this and invest in developing better & better ATV and mowing equipment, as well as a more ecologically balanced model of upland management as a whole.
“Burning Heather correctly via prescribed muirburn (for any purpose) has no effect on stored carbon in peat, regardless of the depth.”
Of course it does. It exposes the land surface to excessive erosion during heavy rain, thereby washing peat (stored carbon) into water courses (as everyone knows). It dumps millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere which otherwise could be sequestered as stored carbon via natural anaerobic decomposition (as everyone knows). And it sometimes sets fire to the peat itself (as everyone knows).
Muirburn also causes severe damage to peat-based ecosystems…
For the attention of G. Hunter.
https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3597/grouse_moor_burning_causes_widespread_environmental_changes
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.13708
A couple of centimetres deciding whether a potentially vast area is either important enough to consider carefully & look after properly, or not important at all and not in need of looking after carefully. Surely one simple measure (literally) alone should not be considered sufficient enough to decide a whole management regime.
‘Depth’ is an irrelevant measure, that’s for sure: the measure which matters – concerning burning – is the carbon content (% organic matter) of the soil.
What with muirburn and industrial turbine developments routinely being given permission by the Scottish Government to be constructed on peatland, it’s a dire time for wildlife and biodiversity in Scotland.
I have witnessed eagles and smaller birds frollickin around, but above and beneath wind turbine farms and the legislation could and should ld limit the gunmen, monicultural grouse moorland so we do certainly appear to be progressing towards an improving biodiversity in a lot of the uplands of Scotland and beyond as we are exporting red kites and golden eagles: their diaspora is growing,..
Great blog.
Peat is a dead store of carbon, preserved through saturation and a lack of oxygen. The important biodiversity is on the surface of the peat. The arbitary 40cm figure takes no account of the state and fate of the biodiversity. If fire destroys the species which form the peat then the ability of the peat to continue grow is impeded. There are thousands of hectares of peat in Scotland where cyclical muirburn has killed the peatforming species leaving a dead lump of carbon. If the burning is removed, there is a good chance that these areas may recover.
Ecologically, I find it depressing when one habitat is cherry picked for special attention and others (potentially rarer or more vulnerable) are left exposed to destruction. For all of its many failings, the Muirburn Code is good at identifying the full range of habitats and species that can be impacted by muirburn. Its just that it is completely hopeless/toothless at being able to protect them. It needs to be re-drafted so that it can be used to support/enforce the proposed licence system. The only way I can see it work is if there is a muirburn plan based on a professional ecological assessment (aka baseline)………………………………or ban muirburn.
Ruth Tingay like Chris Packham,Mark Avery, Revive and LACS, the SNP, Labour Mps and the Greens are left wing socialist animal rights activists against all field sports reguardless of the good the field sports community do.
Make no mistake this bill like thr Hubting with Dogs bill last year is about ethnic cleansing of rural sports from the countryside full stop.
And if successful then you could end up with a situation where more birds of prey are killed in a tit for tat move.
Just like the labour /socialist Snp hunting with dogs bill in Scotland and England and Wales it has not saved a single fox hare or deer. They are being shot 365 days of the year at night using high powered rifles and thermal imaging scopes. And this will happen with birds of prey just to satisfy the left wing socialist predjucies of Ruth Tingay, Packham Avery,SNP,Greens, labour MPs etc
Ah, Mike O’Reilly back again with abusive comments. This time, too stupid to recognise that you’re confirming gamekeepers kill birds of prey. Well done, idiot.
Still, this is an improvement from you writing about my ‘holes’:
I was merley echoing what you and your left wing socialists claim that it is only game keepers that kill rapters.
[Ed: Please point to where I have ever stated, anywhere, at any time, “that it is only game keepers that kill rapters [sic]”.
It’s always funny to see the same old rubbish from Mr “Oh Really”. He appears to lack the intellect to understand that those who crassly attempt to use the word “socialist” as a pejorative reveal more about themselves than their chosen targets.
“Ruth Tingay like Chris Packham,Mark Avery, Revive and LACS, the SNP, Labour Mps and the Greens are left wing socialist animal rights activists against all field sports…”
So that’s a majority, then… and not to mention the RSPCA, SSPAC, National Trust and the RSPB:-)
“Make no mistake this bill like thr Hubting (sic) with Dogs bill last year is about ethnic cleansing of rural sports from the countryside…”
I think you meant “ethnic cleansing of rural sports’ criminality from the countryside”.
“Just like the labour /socialist Snp hunting with dogs bill in Scotland and England and Wales it has not saved a single fox hare or deer”
That’s funny, I saw both a fox and a couple of deer just yesterday which had clearly been saved.
“They are being shot 365 days of the year at night using high powered rifles and thermal imaging scopes. And this will happen with birds of prey…”
Which would be a serious crime by the people currently killing foxes and deer. Thanks for the ‘tip-off’.