Two very different takes on the debate as to whether National Park’s should pursued a limited course of rewilding. I’ll leave you to draw your conclusions! – Monty.
http://www.cnp.org.uk/blog/rewilding-national-parks-time-go-wild
Rewilding National Parks – Time to go wild!
There are lots of different opinions about whether or not rewilding is a good idea in parts of our National Parks, so we decided to features two blogs with differing perspectives on this controversial issue.
In her blog below, Helen Meech, director of Rewilding Britain and has written about the benefits of rewilding in National Parks. For a different perspective, read Robin Milton, chairman of the National Farmers’ Union hill farming committee’s blog.
Britain is one of the most ecologically depleted nations on earth. We have lost all our large carnivores and most of our large herbivores. While the global average forest cover is 31%, and the European average is 37%, ours is just 12%. Our ecosystems have almost ceased to function. Because of the absence of trees and loss of soil, our watersheds no longer hold back water. And these impoverished systems offer low resilience to climate change.
Our National Parks are dominated by sheep farms and grouse or deer estates, leaving almost all our hills bare. Nature is protected in isolated reserves which provide important refuges for biodiversity. But these refuges are not joined up, and so are very fragile in the long-term.
There are no large areas of land in which nature is allowed to find its own way. In this respect Britain is highly unusual: unlike almost any other country, there is nowhere, beyond tiny patches, in which we may escape obvious human impacts.
Rewilding offers a chance to reverse that. A chance to work with communities to restore to parts of Britain the wonder and enchantment of wild nature; to allow magnificent lost creatures to live here once more; and to provide people with some of the rich and raw experiences of which we have been deprived.
National Parks could play a key role in making Britain wild again. Our current Parks are classed as IUCN Category V protected areas – a protected area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value.
We’d like to see the establishment of a core wild area in each National Park which reaches at least category II status, whereby large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities.
By allowing natural systems space to function we can create space for wildlife to thrive and secure all the benefits nature provides – clean air and water, carbon storage, flood control, and amazing experiences which benefit our health and wellbeing. It often requires some initial supportive measures to kick-start natural processes again, or to help reintroduce lost species, but the goal is to reduce human intervention and create wilder spaces, both on land and at sea.
The resurgent wildlife that rewilding will bring has a great potential to attract people and to generate a fair living from the wild. In all the areas of major interest to us – on land and at sea – traditional forms of employment are sparse and often in steep decline. Communities are losing their economic base. Schools, shops, churches and pubs are closing.
By stimulating a vibrant eco-tourism sector we hope to help reverse this loss, bringing income and opportunities that will help young people stay in their communities to raise their families and sustain the area’s vitality. In Scotland alone over 1 million trips are made for the primary purpose of viewing wildlife, and nature-based tourism is estimated to be worth £1.4 billion, with 39,000 associated jobs (Deinet et al. 2013).
We don’t want to rewild everywhere. We do want to see a break from the monotonous uses of land and sea that have caused so much damage and loss – to people as well as nature.
ooooOOOOOoooo
http://www.cnp.org.uk/blog/rewilding-national-parks-farmers-friend-or-enemy
Rewilding National Parks – The farmer’s friend or enemy?
There are lots of different opinions about whether or not rewilding is a good idea in parts of our National Parks, so we decided to features two blogs with differing perspectives on this controversial issue.
In his blog below, Robin Milton is the chairman of the National Farmers’ Union Hill Farming Committee writes about the benefits of farming to National Parks. For a different perspective, read Helen Meech, director of Rewilding Britain’s blog arguing for parts of National Parks to be rewilded here.
I am first and foremost, an Exmoor farmer (cattle, sheep and Exmoor ponies) – and what a privilege it is to live and work in such a stunning place. But it is my involvement in the NFU and Exmoor National Park that has really highlighted to me the true value of the environment I live in, its characteristics, its culture and most of all its farmers.
The designation of National Parks was an important step in recognising the true value of landscapes. But it must always be remembered, these landscapes were not created by environmental management or stakeholder engagement. Instead they were created by generations of farmers producing food and providing that stoical sense of permanence so pivotal to life and communities in remote rural areas. Farmers manage the environment that everyone else either uses or sells, whether that be through tourism, access, recreation or water among others.
That cliché – live as though you will die tomorrow but farm as though you will live forever – perfectly describes farmers in National Parks. After all, farmers’ awareness of the fragility of the environment, the vagaries of climate, generational knowledge, pride and understanding of the landscape is also a resource that that is important. A constant in an ever changing world.
Farmers, more than anyone, recognise the multitude of demands placed upon our National Parks. It is no longer solely about food production (supermarket shelves are groaning with unlimited cheap food) but about landscape, biodiversity, tourism, water, carbon and even flooding. What is unhelpful in determining the level of priority to be given to each of these are the single issue approaches being taken by some environmentalists to shock the public. It is after all inconceivable to me that sheep can be directly and solely responsible for flooding, especially when surveys show that their numbers are down by 20-30% over the last 20 years. And to link this to demands for rewilding and reintroduction of species which would drive the greatest irreversible change to landscape for hundreds of years is both arrogant and irresponsible.
Farming recognises its responsibilities, and has always been willing to embrace change, but only to an extent that is appropriate. After all there were nearly forty years’ worth of Government incentives to drain, plough, improve pasture and remove hedges, so why are there still hedges, hay meadows and bogs? Because farmers recognised their importance!
This is a time of opportunity, a time where National Parks can embrace the values of the true stakeholders and be instrumental in brokering compromise to enhance the long term objectives in an inclusive manner. Willing partners will always achieve more than regulation.
A productive and healthy farming industry in balance with the natural environment must be the objective where appropriate rewetting, rewilding, peat restoration are rewarded in such a manner that the cultural and socio-economic values are retained, National Park purposes are achieved and farming is recognised for its contribution. Hundreds of years’ worth of experience in management of the natural environment must be of some value.