Making space for nature in National Parks:
action to create resilient ecological networks
Report from a discussion workshop on 14 April 2011
Contents
Chapter / Page1. Introduction / 3
2. Summary of Key Messages / 3
3. Presentations / 5
4. Questions and discussion – main points / 5
5. What I liked; what concerned me? / 6
6. What is already happening? / 9
7. What should we start? / 10
8. Mapping a network / 12
9. Developing an action plan – what can we do next? / 13
10. Next steps / 15
Annex 1 – List of abbreviations / 16
Annex 2 – List of participants / 17
Annex 3 – Feedback on the event / 18
Annex 4 – Map exercise results / 19
Annex 5 – Press release / 20
Disclaimer: This report aims to provide a full record of the workshop outputs from all participants. The views and comments it contains are therefore not necessarily those of the authors or sponsoring organisations.
Making space for nature in National Parks: action to create resilient ecological networks
1. Introduction
The Campaign for National Parks[1] hosted a discussion workshop on 14th April 2011 which brought together around 50 key players to think about how the recommendations from the “Making Space for Nature” report[2] could be implemented in National Parks. Keynote speakers, including Sir John Lawton, were followed by an afternoon of lively discussion and debate. There was much shared thinking and ambition across the group. This report records the ideas collected at the workshop, and summarises the key messages arising.
2. Summary of Key Messages
Ambition
Our ambition is that National Parks become core components of resilient and sustainable ecological networks – increasing native wildlife’s chances of successfully adapting to climate change, and, at the same time, improving the delivery of vital ecosystem services for people. This ambition expands the scale and scope of the many exciting partnership projects which are already achieving wins for wildlife in protected landscapes[3].
Potential
National Parks have huge potential to deliver ecological networks and wildlife sites that are Better, Bigger, More and Joined-up! The majority of this land will currently be under some form of agricultural, forestry or game management therefore habitat improvement and creation will need to reward land managers, and ideally become a vital part of sustainable land management systems.
i) Better (Improve quality of current wildlife sites)
It can be done! The condition of designated wildlife sites (SSSIs) in National Parks has improved dramatically over the last decade. Habitat outside of these sites has the potential to improve to a similar level given the right support.
ii) Bigger (Increase size of current wildlife sites)
Large-scale habitat and landscape management is possible in National Parks. They hold the largest remaining tracts of semi-natural habitat in England – a legacy of their much lower population densities and less intensive agricultural management.
iii) More (Create new sites)
National Parks have huge opportunity for habitat creation – particularly native woodland in river catchments, wetlands like peat habitats and grazing marsh, and upland and lowland grazed heath.
iv) Joined-Up (Enhance connections)
National Parks were established as places of escape and enjoyment for the people of England. The transport routes that people use to get to and from National Parks could be mirrored by long distance wildlife “corridors”, to help species movements in response to a changing climate. This would help to make ecological connections between National Parks and other places that are important for wildlife.
Opportunities and Challenges
We identified a number of significant opportunities and also challenges, in terms of achieving the potential of National Parks, including:
· Developing new partnerships for large-scale delivery across whole landscapes – capitalising on the potential of National Park Authorities as a catalyst for action;
· Funding for habitat creation and restoration, and developing new markets for ecosystem services;
· Communicating the ambition and potential with farmers, land managers and communities, and empowering them to deliver it;
· Ensuring there are supportive Government policies and delivery mechanisms in place e.g. through planning policy, CAP, the Natural Environment White Paper and England Biodiversity Strategy.
Actions to take forward
Fresh thinking and action is needed to achieve this ambitious vision, which builds on much existing good practice and projects found in protected landscapes. As a group we identified several important actions we and others could work on over the coming months and years to generate support for “Making Space for Nature” (MSFN) across Government and within communities, and make it easier to achieve ecological networks. Initial actions include:
1. Partnerships within National Parks to develop their own vision for ecological networks – including creating local opportunity maps, and exploring the potential for Ecological Restoration Zones;
2. Existing landscape-scale initiatives to identify key gaps and synergies with other initiatives, and build on these by strengthening existing partnerships and forging new ones;
3. Developing ideas for how the new CAP framework (2014+) and the emerging National Planning Policy Framework could help implement ecological networks;
4. Making greater use of economic valuation information and mechanisms to support the case for ecological networks and the services they provide. E.g. water company payments for habitat restoration in catchments, and capturing payments for land management from tourism spend;
5. Communicating the ecological restoration ambition creatively with farmers, land mangers and local communities, in ways which explore how this ambition could benefit local people and their businesses.
3. Presentations
Sir John Lawton was asked to describe the ‘Making space for nature’ report, its recommendations and the implications for National Parks. This was followed up by speakers who were asked to consider the implications of the report for people, land managers, Government policy and funding opportunities.
4. Questions and discussion – main points
i. There should be more realistic criteria for favourable condition on SSSIs – taking into account climatic and other variation across the country. Flexibility does exist within the current system – depends how it is applied locally.
ii. Large scale projects require long-term funding to secure adequate restoration – how can this be achieved? HLF has recently contributed £70m to landscape scale habitat restoration partnership.
iii. From 2014 to 2020 we need to use the CAP to best effect to help to achieve this agenda. This is a transitional stage where we should be making use of tools like “subsidy envelops”, and preparing land managers for a much smaller CAP subsidy post 2020. We need farm businesses to re-orientate towards more economically realistic farming systems that support the environmental objectives of National Parks.
iv. How will the IUCN review of Category 5 protected area designations be impacted by action on MSFN? If National Parks and AONBs drive forward their role in nature conservation then it would help to maintain this international recognition and status.
v. Will there be opportunities for sharing the MSFN approach with Wales? The legal and planning situation is different in Wales so the individual recommendations would not be the same, but the principles for bigger, better, more and joined sites should apply (and also in Scotland). John Lawton indicated he would be happy to have discussions with Wales.
vi. Will ecological networks mean there will be more restrictions (to protect wildlife) on people exploring the countryside? There may need to be some restrictions for highly sensitive species, but overall there should be more benefits (a more interesting wildlife rich environment) for ‘explorers’, than drawbacks. An increased emphasis on ecological networks does not diminish the importance of access to open countryside.
vii. Can we better align agri-environment scheme requirements and objectives with farming systems? There is increasing support for farmer payments that support beneficial systems of farming, rather than individual practices, although this will not work everywhere. The restriction of calculating payments based on income forgone is still an issue for many National Park farmers.
viii. There seem to be opportunities for water companies to help as they are big landowners? More water companies are properly recognising the value of ecosystem services, and considering paying landowners for land management that leads to cleaner water.
ix. Is society ready for MSFN? There is a big communication job to be done to make people aware of the threats to wildlife and the challenges and opportunities of restoring habitats and ecological functioning. Large scale and co-operation are needed to make this work. The Catchment Sensitive Farming pilot areas are a great example.
x. Should ERZ’s be everywhere or concentrated in particular places? We have limited resources – we need to concentrate them where we will achieve the greatest successes for the resources (e.g. most wildlife protected, important ecological processes re-established etc). We should not forget the international picture when it comes to allocating resources. In global terms it might be better to focus on the rainforests or European traditional agriculture areas. In the UK National Parks would be a worthy focus.
xi. How much of a concern are “biodiversity off-sets” as a financing mechanism for nature? Biodiversity off-sets should not become a ‘licence to trash’. They will only work if they are tightly regulated.
xii. Ecosystem services are very often non-market values – we need to develop ways of capturing these values so that those involved in their provision can be rewarded.
Workshop sessions
5. What I liked; what concerned me?
Participants were asked to individually note what they liked, and what concerned them, about the Making Space for Nature report and/ or the other presentations. These have been grouped under different sub-headings. [Numbers in brackets e.g. ‘(x2)’ relate to numbers of individuals who said the same thing]:
What I liked? / What concerned me?Scope and vision of MSFN
(x7) Better, bigger, more, joined: Simplicity and clarity of the message; Easy to understand, explain and sell. Wonderfully simple and makes so much sense; 4-word exec summary;
Whole scope of the report is good – this has had a chance to influence the NEWP;
Overall conclusion that we need bigger and better areas for nature (and people);
Step-change in habitat restoration and creation;
Will for change to be ‘stepped-up’ – expectation needs to be delivered and maintained;
Welcome the increased focus on landscape function for ecosystem services;
Natural processed becoming more important;
Focus on bigger areas;
Ecological restoration zones;
Scale of opportunity – collaboration to achieve multiple benefits;
Positive reception from Government
(x2) Report has been well-received by ministers – this should be used to raise public awareness as well;
Government recognition of the need for landscape restoration and value of ecosystem services;
Link to People
(x2) Good for nature can be good for people– biodiversity is relevant;
(x2) Positive reception from a diverse audience for the report;
Opportunity for rivers to provide connectivity for wildlife right into the heart of cities;
Link with economics
Everyone mentioned the economic side;
There is a need for consumers to put real value on food, water, carbon biodiversity ... and be prepared to pay for it;
Recognition that food security and environmental security are inter-dependent;
(x2) Ecosystem services – a useful way to value our natural environment;
Increasing awareness of links between biodiversity and socio-economic objectives (‘ecosystem services’);
Less money = less gardening of the natural environment;
Opportunities for funding
(x3) Up to 2020, some money will be available from CAP – how we spend it is crucial;
Opportunity to get more environmental benefits from farm subsidies (not just CAP reform);
Scope for bids for heritage lottery funding;
Opportunities for new partnerships
Potential opportunities for new local partnerships to deliver biodiversity enhancement;
Greater integration of organisations and spatial action – a real opportunity;
NPAs as brokers and convenors or new partnerships;
Potential role of NPAs as facilitators;
There are real example of making this happen (e.g. Adrian Phillips presentation);
Putting farmers and landowners at the heart
(x2) Empowering farmers to deliver conservation;
Bottom-up action – land owners and managers coming together;
Looking for business and environment ‘win-wins’ to get farmers ‘hooked’;
Consensus that farmers and landowners should be at the heart of landscape scale work;
Landowners and managers are essential in the process – it is their land;
Need for land management engagement and ownership of solutions;
(x 2) “West Cambridgeshire Hundreds” farmer-led initiative (what was the driver for this?);
Initiatives led by farmers to join habitats up at a landscape scale;
Ecological potential and role of NPs
Potential for NPs to be included in ERZs;
NPs (and hopefully AONBs) committing to putting ecological restoration into practice;
“Longer, wider, greener” sustainable transport corridors from towns to wildlife rich landscapes; Long distance wildlife corridors along recreational and transport routes;
National Parks and AONB can do this – we need to go up a gear;
National Parks seen as central to Bigger, better, more, joined (‘BBMJ’);
Emerging agreement/ recognition that protected landscapes have a key role to play;
Joined-up – corridors and connectivity;
Favourite quotes
“If the roof leaks, fix the roof – don’t build a conservatory” (i.e. do what’s needed);
“Concentrate efforts where ‘biggest bang for your buck’”; / Issues with the vision
Potential lost opportunity for cross-border learning (Wales/ Scotland/ England);
Risk that follow-up is focussed on ERZs so other recommendations get lost;
Will this result in portioning of the countryside into well-funded ERZs and food production areas?
NPs are already core areas therefore may miss out on ERZ funding;
Implication that nature is a secondary concern to National Parks – not true;
Criteria for SSSI becomes irrelevant as species move;
End point not clear;
Lack of clarity on where we need to prioritise effort;
Use of aggressive language (battles/ brigade/ war etc);
On-going support from Government?
Will Treasury and other Government departments act to support this?
How will policy commitments e.g. NEWP translate into action;
Cuts to statutory budgets will mean nature conservation suffers as it is a low priority;
How do we secure ‘buy-in’ from other Government Depts (Treasury and DCLG);
Worry about influence Defra has on other departments;
Planning system
Need for Defra to influence National Planning Policy framework to incorporate basis for addressing ecological issues;
Natural England need to prepare briefing modules for planners/ councillors;
Biodiversity off-sets will be a threat to semi-natural habitats if they become a substitute for the planning system;
Lack of funding/ tools to make action happen
Mechanisms for incentives are not clear – need to work fast;
Still can’t see where money is coming from;
Govt might sign up but has no money to deliver;
Far less funding from 2020 through CAP;
Landscape and habitat management is important but not necessarily economically viable to pursue;
Worries around diversification built on nature tourism – need ‘new’ cash;
Lack of tools to influence a step-change – weaker planning system, less funding = less control; Tools for NPs as exemplars over and above other areas?
Localism vs national vision
Localism – how do we square the national vision with what local communities want?
Localism – if biodiversity doesn’t mean much to people it will slip down the agenda;
Engaging people
Declining contact between people and nature (nature deficit);
Need to better engage people with this agenda – don’t make assumptions that this is what they want;
How do we empower individuals to make things happen;
Land management
(x2) Environmental management and productive farming don’t have to compete – smart land use rather than segregation;
How to better engage land managers;
There are few farmers here;
How to implement at a large scale where ownership is very fragmented;
Is the food security argument a red herring?
CAP
CAP already delivering some environmental behaviour change – need to build on this;
Delivered improvement through cross-compliance – it is not money for old rope;
Risk of un-doing environmental gains of existing agri-environment schemes by changes of emphasis in new (post 2013) AES;
Need to avoid over-prescriptive schemes – need to deliver positive yet flexible outcomes;
How do we monitor the outcomes of agri-environment options so that we know whether landscape-scale is working?
6. What is already happening?