'Government is playing with fire' over moorland burning ban

Ministers are facing renewed criticism over restrictions on controlled moorland burning as campaigners warn that the policy could leave parts of the countryside more vulnerable to severe wildfires.

The Countryside Alliance has accused the government of disregarding evidence supporting rotational cool burning, a land-management practice used to remove vegetation before it becomes a larger source of fuel for uncontrolled fires.

The warning comes as the UK experiences its fourth heatwave of the year and faces an elevated wildfire risk.

More than 200 blazes have been recorded over the past fortnight, according to figures cited by the Countryside Alliance.

In the Cairngorms, a major wildfire burnt more than 600 hectares of ancient woodland and heather moorland.

The Alliance also said the previous year was the UK’s worst on record for wildfires, with more than 46,000 hectares of land burnt at an estimated cost of £460 million.

Against that backdrop, campaigners have questioned the government’s decision to expand restrictions on burning heather and grassland on deep peat.

The changes, introduced last October, increased the area covered by the ban from approximately 220,000 hectares to more than 670,000 hectares.

Rotational cool burning involves carefully controlled, low-intensity fires designed to remove sections of surface vegetation.

Supporters argue that the practice reduces the amount of dry, woody material available to fuel larger wildfires.

The Countryside Alliance says that, without regular management, ageing vegetation can accumulate and increase the severity of fires during prolonged periods of hot and dry weather.

However, the wider environmental effects of burning peatland remain contested, with government restrictions intended to limit damage to peat and sensitive habitats.

The Alliance said ministers expanded the ban despite warnings from countryside organisations and scientific experts that limiting controlled burning could increase wildfire risk.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has since raised questions about the scientific basis for the decision.

Further details of the committee’s concerns, and the government’s response to them, were not included in the material provided.

Tim Bonner, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said the government had ignored evidence warning of the possible consequences of extending the ban.

“The government ignored the rigorous science and evidence that showed the extension to the burning ban would be hugely detrimental,” he said.

Mr Bonner said the recent fires were causing environmental and financial damage, as well as releasing large quantities of carbon.

“The current record number of wildfires are devastating the environment, releasing millions of tons of carbon and costing hundreds of millions of pounds. This is the consequence of ignoring science,” he said.

He called on ministers to reconsider the evidence surrounding rotational cool burning and its role in wildfire prevention.

“If the government is serious about tackling catastrophic wildfires, it is vital that they put robust scientific evidence first; and that evidence supports the use of rotational cool burning, as the Countryside Alliance have pointed out repeatedly,” he said.

“The government is playing with fire, instead of putting landscapes, nature, and livelihoods first.”

The government’s justification for extending the restrictions, and any response to the Countryside Alliance’s latest criticism, was not included in the source material.