A new scientific research paper published yesterday suggests that prescribed burning, including muirburn on grouse moors, continues to ‘fall short of sustainable practices’.
The research was authored by scientists at the RSPB and was published in the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation:
Annual extent of prescribed burning on moorland in Great Britain and overlap with ecosystem services (Shewring et al. 2024).
The paper presents an assessment of the annual extent of prescribed burning occurring on moorland in Great Britain (2017-2022) and further assesses the overlap of burning with key upland ecosystem services. Using high resolution satellite images of the GB uplands for five consecutive burning seasons, the authors developed a semi-automated method to detect and map the new burn scars in moorland vegetation.
This new method has enabled a more rapid assessment of the annual amount of burning that occurred across the GB uplands over five burning seasons (2017/18 to 2021/22) and further allowed researchers to look at where burning is coincident with known fire-sensitive features (e.g. peat soils, protected areas, steep ground and alpine habitats).
The study detected burning in many protected areas, with those in the North of England, and especially the North York Moors SAC/ SPA, subject to the highest percentage area burned.
Over these five burning seasons, an average of 15,250 ha of vegetation was burnt each year (59% of GB burned area was in Scotland with 39% in England).
In England, the area mapped as burnt during the 2021/22 burning season dropped to 1,859 ha, a decline of 73% when compared with the average of the four previous burning seasons – a pattern not repeated for Scotland.
The decline in the overall area burnt in England during the 2021/22 burning season is coincident with the new Heather and Grass etc Burning (England) Regulations that came into force in May 2021. Researchers will now use the method to map the extent of burning for the last two burning seasons in England to see if the decline has continued.
I’m sure it’ll also come in handy for monitoring the forthcoming adherence to the new regulations under the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act. It’s easy to hide away evidence of illegal raptor persecution – not so easy to hide evidence of illegal muirburn.
Clearly any decline in burning on sensitive features like peatlands is welcome. However, despite the decline in the area burnt in England during the 2021/22 burning season, the study still found that 41% of the area mapped as burnt was on deep peat. These findings are consistent with the reports of burning the RSPB receive via its burning app, with one-third of reports received apparently of fires on deep peat.
Last year, two grouse moor owners were convicted for burning on deep peat in protected areas, one in the Peak District (here) and one in Nidderdale; embarrassingly, that estate was owned by a Board member of the Moorland Association (here).
For further summary information about this latest research I’d recommend this blog written by the lead author Mike Shewring, and this blog by co-author Pat Thompson.
The full paper can be read/downloaded here:
Raptor Persecution UK 
I was wondering about the burns in North West Wales, some of which were close to where I used to live. There were no grouse moors that I can recall. I am not sure there any grouse on the high hills in those areas now, though there were a few some thirty years ago. Generally buring (or in some cases cutting by braver individuals) was carried out by farmers clearing gorse (and some idiots for “fun”) which had got too high and/or extensive for sheep to graze, and effectively. As I recall burning was mostly very small areas or bush by bush basis unless it got out of control.
I couldn’t remember if the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act had actually passed. It’s good that it was before Yousaf burned his boats with the Greens. Not sure what its fate would have been after hearing Fergus Ewing referring to the Scottish Green party as “zealots and extremists” this lunchtime on Radio 4.
G
I am extremely annoyed at the part the green Party played in regards to how they created the conditions that led to the resignation of Humza Youmas. First they got rid of Andy Wightman because he would not follow the Party Line as far as a polarised identity issue was concerned, Andy was arguably, one of the most proficient Green Activist and researcher in Scotland and no mean politician to boot.
Now I am extremely sympathetic towards trans individuals but do not think for a minute that a Party that calls itself the Green Party should prioritise polarised identity issues over their core values… as they did, in my opinion, with Andy Wightman.
Being a minority Party in a Coalition Government they should not have promoted non environmentalist issues to the point it would become the anvil on which their most powerful politcalally was destroyed and the Party thrown into turmoil with a very real chance of losing power.
Patrick Harvey and Lorna Slater should be ashamed of themselves for what they have done with the deepest consequences lying in wait. By going off message they have done great damage to the cause they claim to be the center of their Raison D’etre. Such political naivety at this level can only be equalled by Liz Truss and if Patrick and Lorna had any shame they would resign.
They almost lost my support when Andy went but I can say for definite now that the Green Party will not receive my vote until they are jettisoned and people with some political nous replaces them… and to do so pains me greatly but I am not wasting my vote to those who seem intent in satiating their ego rather than keeping the eye on the ball.
Form where I live I lack any real insight into the schism between the SNP and the Greens, although I am aware of the gender issues, but Lorna Slater wrote to me, concerning the split, saying : Only the Scottish Greens will campaign to put people and planet first.
I tend to think that putting ‘people and planet first’ is a meaningless soundbite and on the surface, a contradiction.
George, your excellent post neatly summarizes my concerns with the Scottish Green Party ever since they forced Andy Wightman out. I help fund the party but cannot be a member until they ditch naive identity politics. Unfortunately there was a grain of truth in the unpleasant comments made yesterday about he Greens being “zealots and extremists”.
John W
The Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill was passed on 21 March 2024.
https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s6-bills/wildlife-management-and-muirburn-scotland-bill/stage-3/bill-as-passed.pdf
Whilst the Bill was passed, it is my understanding that there are still two outstanding issues to be agreed. Under the WM&M(S)B individuals wishing to use certain traps must complete an approved training course for each of the types of traps. Those training courses and the new Muirburn Code still have to be drawn up and approved.
Hi Lynn,
The Scottish Parliament voted to approve the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act on 21 March 2024. See:
https://raptorpersecutionuk.org/2024/03/21/an-historic-day-as-scottish-parliament-votes-through-grouse-moor-licensing/
It is currently going through the process of gaining Royal Assent which formalises the Bill into an Act of Parliament.
Two codes of practice are currently being formulated which will support the legislation – a code of practice for grouse moor management (including the use of wildlife traps, medicated grit etc) and a separate code of practice for muirburn. These codes of practice will include statutory obligations as well as best practice guidelines. You can read more about them here:
https://raptorpersecutionuk.org/2024/01/29/wildlife-management-bill-minister-provides-update-on-codes-of-practice-working-groups/
Two working groups have been established to help NatureScot devise the codes of practice and include stakeholders from both the grouse shooting industry and conservationists. NatureScot (statutory conservation agency) will be responsible for the final text and implementation/monitoring/enforcement of these codes, although ultimately it’ll be a Scottish Government Minister who signs them off. Currently that responsibility lies with Agriculture Minister Jim Fairlie but there will likely be a Cabinet reshuffle when the next First Minister takes office so we’ll have to wait and see who that is.
I’m struggling to understand what ‘prescribed burning’ means in this context. I notice that the term ‘prescribed burning’ is not used in the lead writer’s blog linked to. ‘Proscribed’ means forbidden or illegal. ‘Prescribed’ means ‘laid down as a rule’. Can anyone clarify for me exactly what is meant? Thanks
Hi Liz,
In this context, ‘prescribed burning’ refers to pre-planned fires (such as muirburn), as opposed to wildfires.
Hi Ruth
Thanks for that explanation. I don’t think I have seen the term used before.
Liz
Nidderdale are a law unto themselves awful goings on xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx North York moors always burning again a law unto themselves I can’t believe with all the environmental stuff it is not illegal.
No doubt the shooting industry will ignore the fact that this paper has been independently reviewed by scientists not affiliated to the RSPB in their rush to rubbish the findings.