My blog this morning drew a quick response from Fiona Howie the Chief Exec of the Campaign for National Parks. She posted a comment and here it is for ease of reading:
‘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 here.
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 here) 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’
It’s good of Fiona to respond in this way but her response does indicate, once again, how low wildlife is on the agenda of our National Parks.
Fiona writes: ‘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…‘
Mark writes: Yes we all want that and it is part of the very raison d’etre of National Parks that they protect and enhance wildlife and has been since the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949. But it just isn’t happening because, in practice, National Park Authorities do not prioritise wildlife issues. National Parks are failing in a very basic measure of their effectiveness. The public can see this which is why in your 2016 Big Conversation questionnaire all groups polled put ‘better conservation of wildlife’ at the top of their list of asks.
Fiona writes: ‘I absolutely agree that wildlife, including raptors, is an important aspect of natural beauty and the Parks can and should be doing more.’
Mark writes: Excellent. What’s the plan? How do the public get involved? What are the targets?
Fiona writes: ‘…the Parks can and should be doing more. We acknowledge that through the work we are doing at the moment (see here)…‘
Mark writes: I’ve read what is in that link and it’s very thin isn’t it? Have National Parks noticed that the second most popular thing that people from outside National Parks want from the NPs that their taxes pay for, is for them to be wilder? People, taxpayers, visitors, voters, want more wildlife and they want National Parks to be wilder. Sounds like your Big Conversation came up with a plan all on its own really doesn’t it? And that seems to be more than NPs have done themselves. Wildlife conservation isn’t a new issue that needs thinking about, it’s a neglected issue that needs urgent action if the reputation of English and Welsh National Parks isn’t to decline further. the fact that there isn’t a plan for ‘doing more’ on wildlife pretty much amounts to dereliction of duty by NP Authorities.
So, National Parks should be protecting and enhancing wildlife as part of their duties to society (and allegedly they want to even though their track record is poor), the public wants more wildlife and and the public wants wilder National Parks. That seems a clear message – let’s get on with it. Maybe an ask of government to make sure that payments to land owners in a post-CAP post-Brexit world aid the restoration of wildlife in upland Britain would be a good start?
By the way, 76% of respondents said that nothing prevents them from using National Parks whereas only 8% said that they can’t access them easily. This compares with c39% who want more wildlife and 28% who want the NPs to be wilder. Maybe your third manifesto point should have been about wildlife and habitat restoration rather than access?
[registration_form]
Mark, the 1949 Act says nice things but the creation of the Authorities came much later. The powers National Park Authorities have is largely restricted to being the planning authority for their area, with limited ability to do much else except raise funds and partner projects. Hence why the CNP asks are actually quite realistic?
C – true. But the purpose of the National Parks remains.
What you seem to be saying is that National Park Authorities should remain silent and apparently satisfied when the wildlife in their NPs is disappearing. I don’t think that can possibly be right, can it?
I don’t have any powers at all, but I’m raising the issues. Think what the CNP and NPs could do if they actually did something.
Interested to know what you think the National Park Authorities can do more of in the wildlife area, given they can’t start gov.uk petitions, don’t own land and have no enforcement powers beyond planning. Natural England on the other hand….
C – well, I’ll just go with the CEO of CNP who says ‘…the Parks can and should be doing more..’
They could commit part of their budget into taking positive action for wildlife. They could employ people to engage landowners, they could use their budget to pay for capital works to restore habitats. They could use their budget to promote wildlife to visitors or they could give it to organisations that will.
You are also incorrect about land management, some national parks do own land.
Not sure I agree. Yes, planning is a large part of their job, but it is not their only job and nor does it take up all of their budget by any means.
Your blog prompted me to take a look at the Peak District National Park website. Wildlife doesn’t seem to merit a mention among the things recommended for the park’s 40 million visitors to see and do.
Well there ain’t any. All been shot, poisoned, or bludgeoned (although some badgers and foxes may have been dug out and had dogs set on them too).
Nation of animal lovers, don’t make me laugh.
In the UK “National Park” is marketing tool used by estate agents to boost property prices. “Within view of National Park”, “Set within boundaries of National Park”, “Easy access to neighbouring national park”. That is all it is, a pretty title for use by those who are lucky enough to have the high level of wealth to live in or near one in order to get even more wealthy. That is all the UK government ever does, protect property prices for the propertied classes.
Unless the wildlife abuses start causing property prices to drop (like for example there were frequent large and loud protests by us filthy hippy types on their doorstep) they will do nothing. It is all about protecting the desirability of the property price, hence statements like how certain people claim they can see hen harriers over the open expanse of moor from their kitchen window. It is also why the muirburn will never be ended, it keeps the moors looking like a huge estate manor’s garden. All cultivated and sculpted for perfectly arranged viewing pleasure (hen harriers optional).
I don’t know how to change that to work for the general public instead of the moneyed though. Hopefully someone else does, or we’ll keep on spending taxpayer cash to prop up the property prices of a few. However as it stands “National Park” in the UK is a scam.
There’s actually a big problem here for the conservation sector as a whole – the landscape/access and nature conservation lobbies are almost completely separate and the fault lies on both sides, though rather more for me on the landscape side, which seems almost completely oblivious to the impacts of increasingly intensive land management on the micro-scale landscape – as long as its still broadly green, the fact that most of the wildlife has been wiped out by, for example, the substitution of semi-natural grassland by intensive ryegrass doesn’t seem to matter.
A key problem is education: how many landscape advocates have much knowledge of nature conservation ? But equally, how many nature conservationists know much about landscape ? Or either about archaeology ? Under attack from all sides, and responsible for the landscape as a whole, managers of my generation in the Forestry Commission would have had formal training – and a set of guidelines – in landscape, nature conservation, archaeology, recreation and water at least. How many landscape or nature conservationists can claim that, I wonder ?
Roderik, asked “managers of my generation in the Forestry Commission would have had formal training – and a set of guidelines – in landscape, nature conservation, archaeology, recreation and water at least. How many landscape or nature conservationists can claim that, I wonder ?”
The answer, speaking as someone who has worked for or with protected landscapes for most of my career, is”Most of them”. I certainly have. Some NE staff may be the exception which is ironic.
I share Mark’s broader frustration with NPs, but I think he is directing his anger at the wrong target. I suspect he knows that, too; unlike some of the other contributors, after a lifetime working for RSPB he ought to know how about the governance of NPs and AONBs in a way that ordinary citizens might not.
NPs and AONBs are directly answerable to local politicians who have the same role and power as trustees in a charity. It is not in the gift of NP Chief Execs to make statements on sensitive matters without the backing of the politicians they answer to. They are civil servants, not lobbyists, because NPs and AONBs are not NGOs.
Now you could argue that the NP&AttC Act 1949 isn’t fit for purpose in the modern world. I’d agree but ask what you think, realistically, would replace it in todays climate? Be careful what you wish for.
To me a more interesting, and much fairer, question, is why the hell the nature conservation NGOs are not more outspoken about how our land is managed? About raptor persecution? About the the failure to enforce existing laws? Speaking out IS their role; it’s not the role of NPs and AONBs, not under current law.