UKC

In March this year, conservationists criticised a draft report on the future of Welsh National Parks, written by Future Landcapes Wales, a working group set up by Welsh Government in 2015. Environmentalists are concerned that the report makes does not mention the "Sandford Principle", which outlines that the main statutory purpose of national parks is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area. Outdoor retailer Patagonia are backing the campaign to inform government representatives of the importance of our parks.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Surprised this hasn't attracted any attention. Comments from friends & colleagues in Natural Resources Wales (includes what was previously the Countryside Council for Wales) suggest that the Welsh government are trying to dilute measures to protect nature (biodiversity if you prefer) as much as they can & this seems to follow that pattern.

In reply to Doug:
It was mentioned at the South Wales Area Meeting on Friday evening, I get the feeling it probably fell under the radar due to the MoNC at the previous round of area meetings. Elfyn Jones said he'd try and get something written up and put on the BMC website about it today when he was at Friday's area meeting.
Edit: Found it here:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/new-proposals-a-threat-to-welsh-national-parks

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

bump - this is chuffin' big and needs lots of attention.

In reply to SenzuBean:

another 'bump' for the day time brigade

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
I think part of the lack of engagement with this topic is the lack of a single high profile threat to oppose, a "big bad" which will smack climbers, walkers etc in the face. It's being pushed by the paddlers because they don't have the CROW rights terrestrial folk enjoy, and this can only make the right to rivers less likely. So let's find some tangible issues for climbers and drag them front and centre, rather than this rather academic Sandford Principle.

Will this lead to increased obstacles to access, or more closed or restricted places?

Will it lead to a degraded mountain environment?

Will it lead to charges in more places, or an increase in commercialisation?

The answers to these questions are probably yes, yes and yes, but it would probably help to have some real examples

In reply to toad:
Actually,I've just had a look back at other environmental threads. Look at the size of the Aldery thread - hundreds of replies about the loss of a few trees in an obscure quarry. Trivial compared to this issue, and yet here there's just a handful of posters and the tumbleweed. Focus is all. How will it affect us? What is the concrete impact of the abstract concept?

In reply to toad:


The purpose of all the jargon?! The reports opening sentence -

"The designated landscapes should be the drivers of the sustainable management of natural resources in their areas in the framework set by Welsh legislation"

Is the intention to make more money from tourists?

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Debated yesterday and passed with an amendment to the effect that 'any change in the legislation governing National Parks should be taken through the Assembly as primary legislation'.

http://senedd.assembly.wales/ieIssueDetails.aspx?IId=19159&Opt=3

A chance for more scrutiny and exposure I hope - this whole issue came out of the blue.

In reply to pasbury:

Interestingly my local AM raised the amendment. Not a Plaid voter by any stretch but he's gone up considerably in my estimation.