UKC

The Glover Review is the first official appraisal in 70 years of the way England runs its National Parks and AONBs. From a startling loss of biodiversity to a shameful lack of diversity among visitors, all is not rosy. Paul Besley examines the Review and looks to the future.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Thanks, but given that the report is only about England, maybe the title should be changed ?

In reply to Doug:

It mentions that in the very first sentence. 

In reply to Doug:

It's called the 'Landscapes Review'; it doesn't say 'England' in the title, so why do you think "the title should be changed"?  Would you prefer 'Landscapes Review, But We're Only Talking About England and Wales Here', or, 'Landscapes Review for Anywhere But Scotland'?  I mean it doesn't include France either...or Botswana! 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Well put!

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I believe that a lack of public transport is the biggest barrier people with low income rates face. For a young person with poor parents who both work full time for minimum wage there is barely time for them to bring their children outdoors so there is very little opportunity for young people to get to national parks. When old enough to drive, insurance costs for a young driver are unfairly high, £1500-2000 and with tiny minimum wages for this age group plus struggling parents, public transport provides the only reasonable means to get outdoors. So why is it so terrible? In North Wales the bus network is degraded by a patchwork of private bus services that run too infrequently and are very unreliable. I would like to see this change drastically in the future. 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

You want these places to thrive? To become more sustainable? To somehow escape the environmental decline? Might sound odd but you will have to pay people to change their ways. Money and opportunity is tight and people feel strained and tired. Giving a f**k about some Ring Ouzels is way down on the list of priorities. Pay children to go walking, pay people to go outside and do litter picking, pay people to protect wilds spaces. Then you'd see change. The environment simply needs human respect. 

Imagine if there was a Government grant that was available, worth £1k per person, to help really clean and conserve our wild spaces.

Unfortunately, walking is also promoted as an activity requiring all the latest 'technical' clothing and gadgets, worn by affluent white models in groups of people all seeming to be having a merry time. If you have a crap social life (the poor), no money for expensive jackets (the poor) and no means of getting even to Kinder Scout (the poor), I wonder who it is, who the majority of the population are, who actually suffer? Can't for the life of me work it out. 

What you really need are individuals with some serious spine in these meetings to begin pushing things forwards. People with nothing to lose who are mountaineers and outdoors people who want to see some serious change done quickly. It can be done, but boats have to be rocked, habits altered and politics purged. Until that happens you'll get endless turgid meetings of nothing done while Ring Ouzels die on the doorstep. 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

This article is excellent. We really do need to think differently. Changing the way large portions of the population view things is difficult and a long hard process. While I sympathise with Hans's sense of anger and urgency I'm not sure that his solutions are entirely the answer. One should always remember the problem of unintended consequences and the the fact that human beings tend to withdraw into their silos where they feel they understand things, rather than engage with new and worrying ways of thinking that question how they viewed the world previously.

Just pointing out to the mountain biker who goes off trail that he is destroying the very thing he may have come to enjoy, or appreciating indoor climbing for what it is and not trying to persuade every new young climber that the real deal is outside (an attitude that I am very guilty of), may help.

The Peak District is a particularly vulnerable environment because of its close proximity to a massive urban population but simple things may help. Perhaps don't ask for more parking at Stanage, but   campaign for better public transport and then enjoy the process of getting there as part of the experience.

I'm as guilty as the next person of wanting a quick fix that also allows me to go on living an egocentric life but the more we are all challenged to think a bit differently the more we are likely to act a bit differently and the better chance we have of improving our environment.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Thought provoking stuff.

It seems to me that many of the aims of National Parks are internally conflicting from the outset.

For example "to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area;" 

It could be argued that culture heritage and resulting land use is potentially the thing driving wildlife decline and biodiversity loss.

Same with the 'natural beauty', with large areas of National Parks being dominated by open moorland/mountain with few trees and little in the way of biodiversity. Many people (myself included) like the way these landscape look, but they are not necessarily the best choice for maximising biodiversity.   

Also the Sandford Principle:

'Where irreconcilable conflicts exist between conservation and public enjoyment, then conservation interest should take priority'.

Conservation of what? Way of life? Landscape? Wildlife? Again, these aren't necessarily complementary aims.