In the Guardian there is a slightly odd story about how disadvantaged people are by not having access to National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
From Exmoor to Northumberland, the country’s poorest people are being denied access to England’s most beautiful countryside and missing out on the mental and physical health benefits that can result, research has found.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/04/england-national-parks-out-of-reach-for-poorer-people-study?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Where I live, between Northampton and Peterborough, is a black spot for access to these areas apparently. Well, yes, that’s geography for you! Since most of our National Parks are up hills and most of our AONBs are either up slightly smaller hills or at the coast then anyone nestling in the heart of England is going to be ‘disadvantaged’ in this way.
I’m looking forward to the obvious solution to this huge social issue – make my back garden a National Park! By doing so, with the landowner’s approval, we would immediately fill in a gap in the map and bring huge numbers of people closer to a valued landscape. In addition, the Avery Garden National Park would have less raptor persecution than any of our existing National Parks and I’d be happy to sell teas to all comers thus boosting the perirural economy. You might have to give me a few weeks to tidy up though please.
Usually similar reports stress the North-South divide but since large areas of National Parks are ‘oop north’ it’s not possible to do that here. I’d like to see the analysis though. And the one that says that people living in the middle of the country are disadvantaged by not having access to the sea.
The original CPRE report is a little more sensible than the Guardian report – but not very much.
Here’s how it starts;
CPRE believes that England’s National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) contain our most beautiful landscapes and are hugely important to the nation’s health and wellbeing, providing attractive places for people to live, work or play and making a significant contribution to the economy through tourism and farming. They are also nature’s home, providing habitats for many threatened species and vital environmental services such as carbon storage and alleviating flooding. Indeed, protecting our most precious landscapes was a core aim for CPRE when it was formed in 1926.
https://luc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=9e259557dbaa4bb7b6a6d4078332e996
This is just trotting out the usual pap. Are National Parks and AONBs really ‘hugely important’ to the nation’s health and wellbeing? How hugely? And how measured? No matter, it’s a belief not a fact. Maybe it’s actually an aspiration masquerading as a belief and thrown out there to look like a fact? What is the difference between living and working and playing exactly? Surely these areas are attractive ones for people to die in too? The phrase is almost completely lacking in any meaningful content. Do National Parks and AONBs make a significant contribution to the economy through tourism and faming? What is the evidence for that? No matter, it’s a belief. How significant is that contribution? In particular, I’d love to see the evidence that farming in these areas makes a significant contribution to the economy. Although this is the type of thing that everybody says because we are all supposed to feel sorry for farmers it is very unlikely to be true. Without subsidies (that’s your money) most farming in National Parks is uneconomic (it’s true of most farming and even more true of that carried out in upland National Parks and AONBs). When subsidy payments disappear we will have shed an economic burden n society and we will soon see how profitable farming is, which is why the People’s Manifesto for Wildlife suggests a safety net for farmers in National Parks – a public land acquisition scheme (and see here). And the idea that National Parks and AONBs are ‘nature’s home’ (Yuk! But I guess the RSPB have almost stopped using that phrase these days. And should I be sending the nature around me back to my nearest, distant, National Park?) is ludicrous given that they are some of the most damaged landscapes we have – overgrazed, overburned, overdrained and with wildlife crime running wild through ‘protected’ landscapes! To be fair, our upland National Parks do provide habitats for some of our threatened species, such as the Hen Harrier, Peregrine Falcon and Red Kite, quite good habitat for them in places, it’s just that they are wiped out by the current guardians of the countryside so we hardly ever see them there benefitting in the habitats which exist.
And here’s a quote from the third paragraph of the ‘report’;
And shockingly, almost half of people in the most deprived areas of the country are outside of the catchment, so are less likely to reap the benefits of landscapes designated for the nation.
https://luc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=9e259557dbaa4bb7b6a6d4078332e99
Now, I am a Guardian reader, so I am easily shocked and my hackles will rise at the merest whiff of social injustice but … doesn’t this mean that more than half of people in the most deprived areas of the country are inside the catchment and so are more likely to reap the benefits of landscapes designated for the nation? That sounds like a good news story to me. It is, isn’t it? And it sounds quite remarkably good given the area covered by National Parks and AONBs. And what are the comparable figures for the least deprived areas? I wonder whether they are rather similar?
But there are some good bits too in the CPRE ‘report’ if you fight your way through the guff. Have a look and see for yourself. I think the good bits are to do with access to these areas and the infrastructure within them once you get there. The People’s Manifesto for Wildlife has some things to say about those matters too.
[registration_form]
This sort of discussion can be found in the command papers that circulated 1946-47 when the were working towards the 1949 National parks act. Ultimately they plumped for our bizarrely British approach to national parks- one where nature plays second fiddle to man. (Our NP’s struggle to conform with international definitions.
In this system, nature conservation was to be addressed through National nature Reserves, SSSI’s and Local Nature Reserves.
ANOB and NSA’s are landscape designations, nature conservation does not really feature at all.
All of these designations are now treated as a nuisance.
I recall that about 10-12 years ago, some work done for the Moors for the Future partnership in the Peak District investigated the opportunities for children to get into the countryside. The most interesting result (to me at least) was the apparently relatively large number of children who had every opportunity to get out into the countryside (in this case, the Peak District) but chose not too. Are these children “deprived” or just exercising their choice? I have long felt that this was something that should be explored further.
Ac – I agree.
A now ancient debate that never gets settled – is the unique but exceptional UK approach to National Parks etc (cultural landscapes) useful or not when it comes to nature or the natural environment? Given the Parks & the AONBs cover 25%+ of England at least they should be central to any recovery. But as Mark hints the evidence that they deliver for nature any better than a lot of other places is thin. So, reform the designation (a monstrous IUCN approach) or just demand & support leadership for a much better nature in these much loved places (which hasn’t worked brilliantly to date). Myself, after years of engagement in a couple of Parks, I would go for radical options that could give hope for change.
Sir, I really must take issue with your thoughts on ‘tidying up’ the Avery Garden NP. It is precisely this kind of thinking that has ensured that gardens all over the land are bereft of wildlife and a haven for decking and paving.
Throw away those shears Sir! Go and prune somewhere else Sir! Leave the weeds in situ and stop seeing the ivy (that’s holding up the shed) as a menace.
Disgraceful! Grrrr!
Either that or I have a hell of a lot of work to do.
I disagree – weeding mimics the action of missing large herbivores
Not really G, but maybe you weed with your mouth, if so please film this so we can see how it’s done, it would be very instructional and I for one would love to share such an interesting feature far and wide.
Most children in the Peak District, are rarely seen in the Peak District.
At the risk of sounding like a Monty Python sketch, by modern standards my childhood in Leeds was deprived. As a teenager we regularly took 3 buses to climb in the Peak usually a day trip, sometimes slept out (banned). Nidderdale AONB and Yorks Dales probably closer but the buses were worse. So with a little bit of money and a lot of enthusiasm it can be done. These days I know the principles of the National Park are 1. Conservation and 2. Access (recreation) and in a dispute conservation is the priority. Its a shame business is not in there as well because in the uplands and beyond that seems to have the highest priority of all.
The answer would be to either move the national parks or move the people – or both.
Bob, yes to business blending in. Think of all the edge-effect bonuses.
We need to oust the petty politics of pretty panoramas and insert the beneficial economics of healthy ecosystems breathing life, resources and fairness within their ‘boundaries’ and beyond.
First, I can reassure readers from personal experience that the Avery Garden National Park is unlikely to be deprived of its rough corners any time soon.
More seriously, I’ve been questioning ‘the National Parks are the green lungs of the nation’ for years now – just how long are we mean to hold our breath between visits ? the National parks are one of the symptoms of the pushing of ‘the environment’ to the fringes by the farming lobby – something that seems to have become so generally accepted that even some conservationists are outraged by the rewilding of (rubbish) agricultural land at Knepp. And on food production, the last time I looked the less favoured areas which extend beyond what we might see as ‘upland’ produced just 5% of our food.
As to Northants, I remember talking to one of Mark’s RSPB colleagues at a Kite launch in Fineshade forest, and his comment that the FC forests were almost the only places worth going for a walk in the otherwise arable desert (see previous blog pictures of Mark’s BBS square !)
The answer is already on the table within Government, though almost totally ignored by the conservation sector – NCC recommendation for 250,000 ha of new community woodland around our towns and cities to give people doorstep, every day access to the countryside and wildlife. They also recommended 100,000 ha of new wetland – and that the overriding priority on peatlands is carbon capture, massively more effective than trees and just a tiny bit more important to the future of the planet than grouse shooting.
And, to bring it all back to earth, one of the deprived communities cited in the report is St Helens in the north west – and it is very deprived, with 30% population loss since the war – can you southerners even conceive of that ? In 2004 the Forestry Commission restored the 200 foot high black spoil heap of Sutton manor colliery. In 2010 it was topped off with the stunning 60 foot high ‘Dream’ Sculpture and directly as a result its become such a desirable place to live that FC has been criticised for making housing unaffordable !
So there is the answer, lets bring the countryside and wildlife to the people, not continue to assume it has to be hidden away in the uplands.
“More than nine in 10 journeys”
That covers a multitude of journeys.
All a bit rich from an organisation that opposes making journeys
It does seem odd for CPRE to limit their concerns to the question of access to just two important but arbitrary countryside designations, primarily based on types of traditionally loved hilly landscape. Maybe East Midlands people are nearer to the excellent and extensive Sherwood Forest area, where RSPB doing great work, with free access. Similarly Wirral/ Dee Estuary coastal areas are quite readily accessed from Liverpool, a city mentioned in the report. Walking out at low tide to Hilbre Island is very different from an AONB footpath, but arguably a more exciting and memorable experience whatever your interests. When I lived adjacent to the Yorks Dales it was certainly a treat to go over to Wirral, and similarly to the the miles of coastal marsh around Marshside near Southport, all enjoyed by many more people than just the birders.
I agree – walking out at low tide to Hilbre Island is quite memorable and I can remember it quite clearly just as I can remember also the walk back to West Kirby.
I currently don’t have a car, don’t enjoy driving one when I do and would always prefer to use public transport if I can. I suspect there’s a market for during certain times of the year for special bus/coach services that go from bigger population centres and take people directly to camp sites etc in or near our national parks. The buses/coaches could go through a string of towns e.g Falkirk, Alloa, Stirling to go leave people at a hostel\campsite in somewhere like the Cairngorm’s National Park with return services a few days later. I believe there’s scope for a trial there. Currently it’s not the easiest thing in the world to be in the central belt without a car and get to a national park quickly or cheaply. Could be scope for tie ins with local businesses, all part of the diversification in the rural economy away from traditional ‘sporting’ estates?
I’ve recently heard talk of trying to get the Welland Valley designated as an AONB. Think of the outstanding beauty (at least for this part of the country!) of that part of the valley crossed by the Harringworth Viaduct. It would certainly provide some yellow on that big space on the map between Peterborough, Leicester, Coventry and Northampton and would likely involve three local authorities: Leicestershire, Rutland and Northamptonshire.
Would it provide benefits for wildlife? for the people who live there? for the people who might be encouraged to visit? Well… perhaps.
Well, all right, farming and shooting do cause damage to rural areas including AONBs and national parks (though hardly confined to them). But these are not the major threat to biodiversity in them or indeed the rest of the countryside. The real threat is “soil sealing” which is basically the covering up of the soil with impermeable surfaces in buildings, roads, car parks etc.. Soil is a basic element the whole of the natural environment relies on as much as air and water.
And it’s not only the natural functions and biodiversity of the soil that suffers. Introduce development and you introduce massive levels of air, noise and water pollution and disturbance. Why does the nature conservation movement worry so little about disturbance, noise and light pollution?
The protected areas are far from a perfect protection against unwanted or inappropriate development, but they do offer some. Several AONBs in the south of England are under serious development pressure and some of it is getting approved.
Mark, you say that “they are some of the most damaged landscapes we have – overgrazed, overburned, overdrained and with wildlife crime running wild through ‘protected’ landscapes”. Please take a moment to reflect on that. More damaged than, say, central London? Milton Keynes? Bedfordshire? Well at least the latter, even the intensively farmed bits, supports a degree of biodiversity in the soil. Could and should it be better? Of course. But compare it to the biodiversity in a protected area. They all have management plans which are a mixture of good and bad, but which do contain significant coverage of nature protection, even ones like the North Pennines where shooting is so widespread. That also contains much of our remaining traditional hay meadow and I know I don’t need to tell you why that’s important.
There’s a lot wrong with our AONBs and national parks. Their boundaries are odd thanks to special interest pleading and omit bits which should be in there. Lots of areas that would qualify on landscape grounds aren’t there – why are the Yorkshire Wolds not an AONB? Salisbury Plain? etc., etc.. Yes they are “poor land” – upland mainly – and that’s of course attractive to the shooting industry. What would you prefer, retail distribution depots? Maybe that’s a straw man argument, but with the distribution industry you never know.
Actually these protected areas do enjoy greater protection of nature in English planning policy than elsewhere. Paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework gives “great weight” to conserving landscape and natural beauty in NPs and AONBs but it also says: “The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads” Which is odd, as it actually denies “great weight” (a very important planning consideration) to them in AONBs. This is something you might usefully raise with DEFRA’s current Glover Review; it may have been an oversight in the drafting, but the NPPF is such a wretched pieces of environmentally destructive work that I doubt it.
Your point about raptors is obviously a fair one; but, er, they’re not the only important element of biodiversity in protected areas. Wot abaht the earthworms?
I couldn’t honestly say how important NP and AONB tourism and farming are to the national economy, but I personally believe very strongly that great landscapes are important to the nation’s health and well-being. I can’t prove that, any more than you can prove hen harriers actually matter very much to the environment. Personally I think they are, as you do, but I also know how intensely I value great landscapes and I just wish all the UK’s enjoyed the appropriate level of protection. That might even protect parts of the East Midlands, who knows?
Mark – I think you’ve allowed your justifiable disgruntlement at the health of the protected landscapes spill over into an unfair complaint about what is actually a pretty good CPRE report. True enough, it is introduced by a banal and platidudinous introductory paragraph, but after that, the focus on access in relation to deprivation is decidedly progressive – and adds to the less specific material on inclusion and access in the People’s Manifesto (which also, btw, contains equally anodyne generalisations about emotional and mental health and so on).
The report actually answers your questions about accessibility for the least deprived sections of the country in detail – see the map headed “socio-economic”. The figures are that lack of access is highest at 49.3% for the most deprived 10% and improves steadily as you go up the scale to reach a low of 27.5% for the least deprived decile. That’s a pretty steep curve. And that’s just for distance. When you add in transport availability – including access to a car, and public transport, the inequity becomes even steeper.
I think CPRE – as a traditionally highly conservative body – are to be applauded for highlighting access in very concrete terms of community deprivation.