The Campaign for National Parks has published its ‘manifesto‘ – which is actually a small begging letter – for the general election. It’s a disappointing list.
The CNP wants:
-
Strengthening national planning protections for the National Parks
-
Protecting the funding currently committed to the National Parks for the next five yearsso they can be effectively managed and enhanced
-
Increasing sustainable access to National Parks to enable everyone to access and enjoy these inspirational places.
Not a word about wildlife. Nature conservation is not on the National Parks’ agenda – they are practically blind to the ecology of their areas, but will leap at the chance to publicise any sexy projects that others are carrying out in their areas. We need an audit of the effectiveness of our National Parks in protecting and enhancing wildlife as an important aspect of natural beauty. English NPs would come out of it very badly.
Raptor crisis? What crisis? It’s not within the power of NPs to solve the raptor issues in their areas – but we should expect them to highlight the problems to government, the police and others (even to politicians at election time). Instead we see failing talking shops like the Peak District raptor forum.
The English upland National Parks are wildlife crime hotspots and their reputations are steadily declining as their lack of natural wildlife populations becomes better known.
We should consider de-designating some National Parks because they are not fulfilling their functions, rather than protecting their budgets.
It is possible to contact the CNP using this email address [email protected]
[registration_form]
National Parks in the UK are a national joke. You’d never know you’d crossed from conventional, wildlife-depleted countryside into a National Park here because National Parks simply replicate the farmland around them, but with more signs advertising the NP Authority and Lottery. What’s the point of that? Our National Parks should be hives of habitat-restoration and habitat-creation activity, test-beds for rewilding and places to go and see wildlife you can’t experience in the wider countryside. Compare our UK efforts with other countries with high human population densities – India, for example – you really know when you’ve entered a National Park in India. And Brazil, Cambodia, the USA, Croatia, Greece…….
NPINO!
National Park In Name Only.
Governments want the kudos and prestige of a National Park but want to do zero -f cking- effort, spend practically no cash, nor change their donor’s lifestyle in the slightest. That is the UK all over. Makes me want to weep.
As you say Mark, people are welcome to get in touch with us but before doing so I would encourage them to have a look at the full (albeit still only 1.5 pages long) document, which is available at: http://www.cnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploadsfiles/Final%20-%20Campaign%20for%20National%20Parks%20key%20asks%20for%20the%20General%20Election%202017.pdf
Ahead of this snap election influencing manifestos will be even more difficult than usual, and so we believe it was important for us to issue three, simple, high level asks. But if we are to get the parties to commit to them we believe they would provide essential hooks with the next Government for tackling the issues you raise.
We flesh out our asks more in the document, and state ‘We want the [National Park] Authorities to be working to improve and enhance the National Parks so, among other things, they are richer in biodiversity, better at capturing carbon and better able to reduce flood risk. This needs to be properly resourced.’ I absolutely agree that wildlife, including raptors, is an important aspect of natural beauty and the Parks can and should be doing more. We acknowledge that through the work we are doing at the moment (see http://www.cnp.org.uk/more-beautiful) but the policy levers through which that can be achieved need unpicking. We had been developing work we wanted to try and get into the 25 Year Environment Plan, but whether that will now ever see the light of day is unknown. So for our election asks we decided to go back to basics.
Finally, I should highlight to avoid confusion that Campaign for National Parks is a small charity dedicated to campaigning to protect and promote all of the National Parks of England and Wales. We do not represent the National Park Authorities and we do not own or manage any of the land within the Parks.
Fiona
Chief executive – Campaign for National Parks
Fiona – thank you for your comment
Fiona
Having read your 1.5 pages I ponder why when you allude to being an umbrella body of 40 environmental and recreational groups … ‘representing over four million people with an interest in National Parks” why CNP have not been a louder voice and more vociferous in bringing to the public attention issues in our NPs?
I have been known to take an interest in national planning issues and frequently come across CPRE and occasionally OSS input but I’ve not come across any CNP submissions (that’s not to say there have not been any collaborative umbrella submissions) so the 4 million voices for NPs (larger membership that RSPB and WTs combined) seem rather quiet when there is so much at stake?
One might ponder the composite membership, that is to say their actual areas of interest in these areas. A shooting interest could be said to have legitimate interest …. as might a ornithological society?
Having briefly looked at your accounts I appreciate that your income is less than £0.5m so not the income of a large NGO with a marketing machine, however surely with a network of 40 ‘associates’ you might be more widely known as a recognised champion and advocate for nature/the natural environment?
‘We’ (conservation need critical mass of collaborative campaigning to get and keep the issues in the media and public gaze?
CNP’s election ‘manifesto’ misses an opportunity to call for a post-Brexit agri-environment support system better aligned with national parks’ statutory purposes.
Upland sheep farmers could not survive without direct support, but the ecologically impoverished ‘sheepwrecked’ landscapes in our national parks would provide more ecosystem services and public goods overall with less sheep https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/09/lake-district-world-heritage-site-george-monbiot
CNP and the national parks must be vocal leaders in discussions about a new contract between farmers and taxpayers post-Brexit. Dieter Helm’s think piece on post-Brexit agriculture provides a good starting point
http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/natural-capital/environment/agricultural-policy-after-brexit/
In response to the “raptor crisis”, Cairngorms NPA and SNH recently launched a Civtech challenge https://civtech.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=45903139 and
UK national parks are apparently gathering information on the issue and plan to look at what they might be able to do together. What will they say and, more importantly, what will they do?
Parks encourage hunting as killing things is part of the tory manifesto. This does not encourage a respect for the environment and nature
I am not going to be contacting the park. Is it possible for doctor mark avery to contact the exmoor national park and to learn that this park do not licence stag hunts anymore but instead turns a blind eye to deer and stag trophy hunting, massive meets and deer being forced to jump from bridges within the park. The authorities and parks do not have conservation in mind but just keep to traditional hunting ethics .
Dear mark avery
Coukd you study the bateson report on stag hunting which resulted in the ban of stag hunting after it was shown as being extensivery cruel and barbaric
Could you also look into the exmoor park authority which side ce the stag hunt report in 1991 have not issued any stag hunt licenice
Could you then look into dorset and devon stag hunt who continue to reign supreme within this park, holding large massive meets and hunting in the areas according to the same traditions
Resulting in deers being forced to jump off bridges and landing in roads infront of horrified people
The exmoor national park now say they do not have authority over their own park as they do not own the land
They then show me that all of the land they do own is actually the odd bridge or car park
This is the same with the Lake District who actually own only 4% of the land that is within the park
So what control do these parks actually have ?
And did you know they do not even have to give any hunting licenice as there is no legislation requiring them to do this
Bradders, the National Park Authorities are primarily planning authorities for the area, with limited ability to do much else except raise funds and partner projects. Hence why the CNP asks are actually quite appropriate.
This country doesn’t have proper National Parks. None of them would be recognised as such by any other country. They are Potempkin village N.Ps, The facade looks OK and that is it.
I agree that we don’t have ‘proper’ National Parks if we apply a more globally acceptable definition, John, but I would say that it is more due to circumstance than design. Most NPs elsewhere are younger in status than ours, and the majority are defined by the true wilderness that they present.
As the UK doesn’t have any truly ‘wild’ spaces (barring a few alpine scrapings in the Cairngorms and possibly some formerly treeless spots in the Flow Country), then we have to concede that all our land, including that which contains the NPs, has to ‘accommodate’ the resident people, and the various ways and means that they have used to help shape and manage it over time.
The running of NPs is therefore very difficult, as the various interested parties that live, work and use them might generally agree that they are special places, but likely won’t agree on what is the best direction to take them.
As a fan of rewilding, I would love to see the future direction that our NP Authorities take as being one of a sole aim of moving towards providing true wilderness again (in the truest definition), but to not do so by then fully discouraging access, or certain businesses, or even habitation, by the people that come from the area or who want to work there.
In other words, I believe it is still possible to live and work in such ‘wilderness’, but certain activity (such as DGS or sheep farming) would probably have to end. Otherwise, these spaces then simply become large nature reserves, in the stricter sense… and whilst that might sound good to, I suspect, most people that read Mark’s blog (including myself), you can’t do that without then kicking out the tens of thousands of people that currently live in them and putting up fences to demarcate them.
In Spain, aside of the 15 main National Parks, there are 50 or so ‘Natural Parks’, and I see our NPs as being more similar to those in the way they are looked after, even if their definition of “little transformed by human exploitation and occupation” doesn’t quite apply either.
It would be nice to perhaps target some genuinely uninhabited zones in the UK and start moving those towards a genuine National Park status instead. But I think that can only be done realistically by starting off with some of our nature reserves as the basis, and expanding outward from those instead. Something like the two Great Fen projects we have in East Anglia spring to mind.