What does this blog have in store for 2017?
- an important part of Brexit discussions will be how and whether public money continues to be handed out to land managers – it’s our money and the public deserves a better return for its massive investment
- the best wildlife sites, on land and at sea, need to be protected – we need more protected areas and their protection needs to be strong
- driven grouse shooting should be banned
- National Parks need to be centres for rewilding, delivery of ecosystem services and refuges for nature
- public policy should take proper account of science and data
- the media should do a better job in addressing nature conservation issues
- wildlife NGOs need to raise their game if they are to retain our almost unquestioning support
- guest blogs are welcome here
Happy New Year to all. Stumbling onto the persecution of HH 3 years ago introduced me to this blog. The journey I have travelled since has been like walking down a long corridor with many doors, each opening into rooms full of interest and information. I have been introduced (metaphorically) to many inspirational people I was unaware of and environmental issues I had not explored. More please – never mind my chores – they are not going to put on my gravestone that I neglected the ironing!
Let’s hope 2017 brings progress for our embattled environment, despite the politicians.
Thanks so much Mark, RPUK, Raptor Politics, LACS, Chris et al.
I tried to hit the like button but failed please discount the dislike. I couldn’t cancel it.
It is very hard indeed to see any gains from Brexit but the potential to get off the food production treadmill of CAP is definitely one.
However, getting it right is a huge challenge demanding far more imagination than the leaderships of farming and conservation are showing at the moment. In arguing for resources for land use the two unlikely bedfellows are now, though they may not recognise it, very much on the same side: with the childish crudity of current English politics we have to be ready for the opposing of farming and wildlife on one side, the NHS on the other. That a couple of million £s will wreck the countryside and make no difference to the NHS will be as relevant as protests against the lies told about Brexit were.
Two clear approaches are opening up within conservation at least, and they are very different: the traditional, sectoral & spending approach of Lawton, much favoured by conservation, and the outcome led economics driven approach of the Natural Capital Committee, barely mentioned by conservationists.
The latter is the only way to go: David Milliband rightly described the sectoral approach – conservation bidding for more protected areas, farming bidding to maximnise its area and intensity, as a zero sum game. And it is a game that will be played out with decreasing money.
In contrast, the NCC has shown the big economic gains in some of the areas politicians have to care about from an outcome led approach, ideas starting to be played out in areas like flood control. All players need to get used to being part of multi-benefit planning: getting away from the present position of it having to be a nature reserve to be good for wildlife, and instead bidding for wildlife to be included as a vital, if subsidiary, aim in new landuse planning. With many upland farms net income less than their grant payments, a situation locked in place by the CAP’s ‘good agricultural condition’ requirements, what we might call re-wildling, others low intensity land management looks like a way to save the landscape and the people simultaneously, and that is even before adding in carbon benefits. As an example, restoring rivers to their natural course in the New Forest was carried out and funded (EU Life) as a conservation project – but became one of the most powerful demonstrations of the impact of ‘soft’ approaches to flood management.
Similarly, the Government has now committed £1 billion (not million) to the renewable heat incentive for burning wood for heat, to replace fossil fuels. It so happens that it is probably the best mechanism for saving Nightingale and other species of neglected ancient woodland – something that was realised in developing the policy, and was recognised as an important, if subsidiary, aim.
So what would you do with the NCC’s 250,000 has of ‘community woodland’ around our towns and cities, reading it as I do not as forest, but as new green space for people and wildlife ? How would 10,000 has of new reedbed designed to clean grey water off our streets look to Bitterns, Great White Egrets, Spoonbills….? And guaranteed for the future by the fact it is saving millions of pounds and energy through replacing expensive artificial cleaning plants.
Bang on the money, Mark. Happy New Year!
When you mention National Parks don’t forget Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty – same landscape quality, many as big as or bigger than National Parks and offering similar ecosystem services, places for nature etc.
Claire – thank you – good point.