BY BERT BURNETT
Peatlands have become a hot topic in recent years, hailed as vital carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots. Yet, behind the well-meaning rhetoric of conservation and rewilding lies a more complex story—one of financial incentives, natural processes, fire risk, and the often-overlooked role of traditional land management.
While the protection of peatlands is undeniably important, it is equally crucial to question whether the current approach is grounded in science, fairness, or common sense.
The truth is, much of the so-called “damage” to peatlands is entirely natural. Peatlands are dynamic ecosystems that have evolved over millennia, shaped by natural processes such as erosion, sedimentation, and the growth and decay of vegetation. What some now label as degradation—such as the formation of gullies or the natural drying of peat—has been occurring for centuries. This is not damage; it is the natural ebb and flow of a living landscape. Let’s call this ‘True rewilding’.
Rewilders true to their name would allow these processes to continue unimpeded, rather than imposing costly and often unnecessary interventions.
Historically, peatlands have been managed by local communities through practices like cutting for fuel and controlled burning. These activities, far from being destructive, have helped maintain the health and diversity of these ecosystems.
Cutting peat for fuel, for example, creates open areas that allow new vegetation to flourish, while controlled burning prevents the buildup of dense, woody vegetation that can alter the hydrology of peatlands. These practices are not only sustainable but also deeply rooted in the cultural heritage of rural communities.
Yet, under the guise of restoration, vast sums of taxpayer money are being funnelled into projects that often amount to little more than blocking agricultural drains—many of which were installed at the encouragement and expense of successive governments. While some of this work is carried out by local volunteers, the financial benefits often flow to large landowners and organisations who have learned to capitalise on the growing demand for “green” credentials.
This raises serious questions about fairness and accountability. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for reversing policies that were once actively promoted? And why should landowners profit from what is, in many cases, a natural process?
Natural wastage—the gradual breakdown and erosion of peat—is a key feature of healthy peatland ecosystems. It is not a sign of degradation but rather a testament to the resilience and adaptability of these landscapes. Attempts to halt or reverse this process through costly interventions are not only misguided but also risk undermining the very ecosystems they seek to protect. True conservation should work with nature, not against it.
The current approach to peatland management also risks alienating the very communities who have cared for these landscapes for generations. By dismissing traditional practices as harmful and prioritising large-scale, grant-funded projects, we risk losing the local knowledge and stewardship that have sustained peatlands for centuries.
It is time for a more balanced and pragmatic approach to peatland conservation—one that respects natural processes, values traditional management, and ensures that public funds are used wisely and fairly. Let us not be swayed by the allure of quick fixes or the promise of green credentials. Instead, let us focus on what truly matters: the long-term health and resilience of our peatlands, and the communities who call them home.
Peatlands are not just carbon stores or biodiversity hotspots; they are living landscapes with a rich history and a vital role to play in our future. It is our responsibility to care for them, but we must do so with humility, respect, and common sense.
Bert Burnett is a retired gamekeeper of more than fifty years experience.