Making space for nature in National Parks:
action to create resilient ecological networks
Report from a discussion workshop on 14 April 2011
1
Contents
Chapter
Page
1. 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.
2
Making space for nature in National Parks: action to create resilient
ecological networks
1. Introduction
The Campaign for National Parks1 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” report2 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 landscapes3.
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)
1
With support from ENPAA, RSPB, Natural England, National Trust
2
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf
3
E.g. see http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/england_s_national_parks_-_beacons_for_biodiversity.pdf
3
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
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.
5
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.
John Lawton
Adrian Phillips NT
Claire Collyer CLA
Gareth Morgan RSPB Sarah Webster Defra
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.
6
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
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
7
for ecosystem services;
Natural processed becoming more important;
Focus on bigger areas;
Ecological restoration zones;
Scale of opportunity – collaboration to achieve
multiple benefits;
species move;
End point not clear;
Lack of clarity on where we need to
prioritise effort;
Use of aggressive language (battles/
brigade/ war etc);
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;
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;
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;
Planning system
Need for Defra to influence National
Link with economics
Planning Policy framework to incorporate
Everyone mentioned the economic side;
basis for addressing ecological issues;
There is a need for consumers to put real value on
Natural England need to prepare briefing
food, water, carbon biodiversity ... and be prepared to modules for planners/ councillors;
pay for it;
Biodiversity off-sets will be a threat to semiRecognition that food security and environmental
natural habitats if they become a substitute
security are inter-dependent;
for the planning system;
(x2) Ecosystem services – a useful way to value our
natural environment;
Lack of funding/ tools to make action
Increasing awareness of links between biodiversity
happen
and socio-economic objectives (‘ecosystem services’); Mechanisms for incentives are not clear –
Less money = less gardening of the natural
need to work fast;
environment;
Still can’t see where money is coming from;
Govt might sign up but has no money to
Opportunities for funding
deliver;
(x3) Up to 2020, some money will be available from
Far less funding from 2020 through CAP;
CAP – how we spend it is crucial;
Landscape and habitat management is
Opportunity to get more environmental benefits from important but not necessarily economically
farm subsidies (not just CAP reform);
viable to pursue;
Scope for bids for heritage lottery funding;
Worries around diversification built on
nature tourism – need ‘new’ cash;
Opportunities for new partnerships
Lack of tools to influence a step-change –
Potential opportunities for new local partnerships to
weaker planning system, less funding = less
deliver biodiversity enhancement;
Greater integration of organisations and spatial action control; Tools for NPs as exemplars over
and above other areas?
– a real opportunity;
NPAs as brokers and convenors or new partnerships;
Localism vs national vision
Potential role of NPAs as facilitators;
Localism – how do we square the national
There are real example of making this happen (e.g.
vision with what local communities want?
8
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’”;
9
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 crosscompliance – 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 agrienvironment options so that we know
whether landscape-scale is working?
6. What is already happening?
Groups (6 groups x 8 people each) were asked to come up with examples of what was already
happening to take us towards the recommendations in MSFN, and say why it was working.
[Numbers in brackets e.g. ‘(x2)’ relate to numbers of groups who said the same thing]. Web links to
various projects have been added for further information.
What is already happening?
(x3) National Park management plans are good process for engagement – they could take MSFN
ideas and develop how to implement them (they can be locally biased and will need national input
too)
NPAs are good at considering other elements like education or archaeology
Catchment approach is better that using administrative boundaries – always use the most
appropriate geographical scale for the outcomes
Joint project (FC/ MOD/ NNPA/ RSPB/ NT/ NWT) – woodland, riverine, heather and bog restoration
for black grouse
GWCT seminar engaging with private landowners. Needs good facilitation e.g. by FWAG. See
http://www.gwct.org.uk/support_us/attend_an_event/search_for_an_event/2670.asp
Moors for the Future partnership – biodiversity is a part of this, but ecosystem services is the key. It
is a holistic project that includes private land owners and their resources. See
http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/
Lake District – simulation of different woodland cover levels in the landscape to see what people find
acceptable
(x2) Lake District National Park Partnership - agreed land management outcomes and opportunity
mapping. See http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/index/aboutus/partnership-2.htm
Self-recruitment of farmer groups to co-ordinate agri-environment initiatives and secure motivation
Planning protection for contiguous semi-natural habitats
Linking Skipwith Common and Lower Derwent Valley NNRs with agri-environment schemes.
http://www.thorne-moorends.gov.uk/text_files/events_2010.pdf
Flood risk management projects (funded by Defra) e.g. Slowing the Flow at Pickering; See
http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/pdf/Pickering_invitation_factsheet.pdf/$FILE/Pickering_invitatio
n_factsheet.pdf
(x2) Upland Ecosystem service Pilots (NE and partnerships) – contributing to understanding of
payments for ecosystem services and spatial planning for ecosystem services. See
http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/sites/default/files/Presentation_Delivering%20Nature%27s%
20Services_Ruth%20Waters.pdf
Organisational priorities: Living Landscapes (Wildlife Trusts), see
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/?section=environment:livinglandscapes; Futurescapes (RSPB), see
http://www.rspb.org.uk/futurescapes/; Landscape scale (NT), see
10
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-nature_conservation_strategy3.pdf
(x2) Partnership delivery of landscape scale projects: Peatscapes http://www.northpennines.org.uk/;
Yorkshire Peat Partnership, see http://www.ywt.org.uk/yorkshire_peat_partnership.php; Fix the
Fells, see http://www.fixthefells.co.uk/; Moors for the Future (see above); Wild Ennerdale
http://www.wildennerdale.co.uk/ etc
Making research happen – hosting conferences; influencing funding bids (to NERC etc)
Long term research and evidence for management practices that are effective at large scales
Branding wildlife e.g. Limestone Country project. See
http://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/limestonecountryproject
(English) National Parks vision to improve biodiversity has been approved by Government. See
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/national-parks/vision-circular2010.pdf; and
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/interim2/upland-policy-review2011.pdf
Development of National Character Area description and objectives by NE and stakeholders, see
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/landscape/englands/character/areas/default.aspx
Public investment through Environmental Stewardship
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/farming/funding/es/default.aspx
Private investment e.g. water companies
“2020 Vision for a wilder Britain” project http://www.2020v.org/ – engaging people with National
Parks
7. What should we start?
Groups were asked to identify what we should start doing to better achieve the recommendations in
MSFN. [Numbers in brackets e.g. ‘(x2)’ relate to numbers of groups who said the same thing]. These
have been grouped into 3 main (yet related) headings:
a. Communicating: developing a ‘local’ vision; inspiring and enabling action

Need to communicate the big picture of the ‘Lawton’ report – even within NPAs. Don’t
assume people know the big picture;

In each National Park or sub-level valley or catchment, get as many people together to
create a vision with shared outcomes; Get beneficiaries together to understand and help
to make connections e.g. to downstream areas affected by flooding;

Turn National Park management plan into action – identify key lead person to take
forward;

Think about how ecological restoration concept fits with other agenda, especially food
security. Try to find common ground and communicate with those progressing these
11
other agendas; Sell ecosystem services; Use regular bills (water, energy, food) to make
links with NP ecosystem services;

Earlier engagement with private landowners – National Parks can do; Get the message
across to land owners; Inspire, engage and connect with people; Respond to
opportunities e.g. work with the keen farmers;

Communicate how landscape and biodiversity changes over time;

Engage with people by expressing changes to their immediate locality – not the wider
landscape;

Empower people to take the ideas forward “What can you do?” – early adopters;

Re-connect citizens with nature;
b. Habitat restoration and management at a larger scale

Use existing exemplar projects in NPs as a catalyst to achieve more – both within and
outside NP boundaries;

Sharing of ideas beyond National Park boundaries; National Parks need to link with
authorities outside their boundaries; Joint working between NPAs and AONBs – to give a
larger area of focus; Less competition between bodies trying to achieve similar goals;

Large-scale land management to enable natural processes; Breakdown political
geographical boundaries – work at delivery scales that make sense to ecological
networks;

MOD look to how they link to the surrounding landscapes, not just within own estate
(also relevant to other big estates) – large scale funding may help to make these links in
an area;

Develop restored habitat areas between National Parks to create stepping stones and
linkages;

Map all the small projects happening on one area to see where connections could be
made;

Ensure the outcomes of landscape scale projects / agri-environment schemes are
monitored so we know how well they are working;

Clarifying and reducing the complexity of existing initiatives;

Look at aspects beyond ecosystem services;

(x2) Deliver more in areas outside SSSIs – avoid two-tier management;
12

Science of habitat networks – how close do individual sites need to be to be effectively
connected?;

Need to build and value the skills set used to manage new habitats;

Explain what MSFN report means for planning; Develop green infrastructure through
urban areas and along transport corridors;

Define ‘wild land’ and achieve policy support for it;

Tackle invasive species;
c. Developing new funding streams and payments for ecosystem services; change the
economics and focus of the CAP;

(x2) Focus CAP money on creating ecological networks (e.g. use the ‘envelope’
mechanism);

Re-focus agri-environment economics (income forgone issue); Post 2014 CAP – we need
a new definition of eligible land to allow ERZ/ other MSFN recommendations to happen
whilst still rewarding farmers through the CAP; CAP post 2020 – sharpen the tools now;

Build on the good legacy of agri-environment, celebrate achievements;

Look for alternatives to CAP whilst focussing funding at priorities in the meantime; (x2)
Tighter targeting and prioritisation of agri-environment;

Develop a payment system to benefit those delivering ecosystem goods and services;

Need to get visitors to pay for what they get – e.g. bed tax;

Identify economically sustainable projects like wood burners or deer management for
venison initiatives; Branded products – e.g. South Downs quality branding;

Explore new markets; establish new market mechanisms (e.g. carbon trading for
peatland restoration);

Encourage sustainability entrepreneurs;

Recognition and funding for projects in NPs;

Use Localism agenda to allow NPAs to manage local authority budget;
8. Mapping a network
Groups were provided with a map of an area of a National Park (roughly 10 x 10 km) and asked
to draw onto it a ‘coherent ecological network’. The network had to benefit wildlife, and, to take
into account other likely objectives such as landscape; historic environment; water resources;
carbon storage; local community needs; leisure use; and the land owner’s objectives.
13
They were asked to ‘fit in’ roughly 1000 ha of new habitat creation and/or restoration of existing
habitat. This was equivalent to ten 1km squares (including linear features) or 10% of the map
area.
They were asked to identify where they would put habitat restoration or creation options and say
what types they are/ how they will be managed/ and why.
They were asked to think about:
o
What are the big opportunities?
o
What are the major constraints?
o
What was most difficult to agree?
o
Who will benefit?
o
If you only had the resources to do half of this (500 ha) what would your priorities be?
The results of this exercise are pictured in Annex 4.
9. Developing an action plan – what can we do next?
Groups were asked to look back at the recommendations and say which are priorities to take forward
and how should they be done, who should do it. They were asked to consider action at the National
Park Level and wider e.g. national / strategic/ structural. These have been grouped under broad
headings for action:
a. Develop the vision for MSFN in particular places:
Each National Park (partner based – not just NPA) to produce a response to MSFN priorities
– including information on how they will work towards ‘better’, and well as ‘bigger, more
and joined-up’;
Explore the potential for ERZs – including in National Parks and AONBs; National Parks could
be the first tranche of ERZs; National Parks could join together to enter the bidding process –
or lobby Government not to have to bid;
(x2) Develop an “opportunities map” for each National Park that would implement MSFN
recommendations – base this on National Character Areas using data from the MAGIC
system – for funding opportunities it is useful to see a spatial map;
Include action for biodiversity in the NE/ ENPAA shared outcomes agreement;
Identify what success looks like, and monitor outcomes in getting there.
b. Generate support for MSFN, and make it easier to achieve ecological networks:
14
i.
Through policy or funding change Undertake a collective review of the tools we
have for delivering biodiversity; Develop ideas for the new CAP framework – what
do we want from CAP post 2014 to support MSFN? Influence the emerging national
planning policy framework now; Everyone to study NEWP and come back with a list
of actions; Establish ways of paying for sustainable management of habitats –
branding products etc; Continue to develop economic valuation information to
support the case for ERZ and delivery of biodiversity; Develop a common
understanding of legislative requirements for land managers and a common
application for funding.
ii.
Through community support Encourage everyone to read MSFN! Welcome the
publication of the Government’s response to MSFN and urge landowner
commitment to taking action (GWCT); Communicate MSFN ideas with local
communities; Sense-check landowner engagement; Develop storylines and vision to
work with landowners and citizens; Develop Park specific stories – to celebrate the
now and develop a road map to 2020; Develop a communication plan to discuss
these ideas with farmers, landowners, moorland owners.
c. Deliver more on the ground:
Reduce the complexity and competition around landscape scale projects – map the benefits
different schemes are trying to achieve – identify gaps to make it easier to combine different
schemes; Work to join up the concepts of IBDAs/ ERZs/ RSPBs Futurescapes etc; Encompass
MSFN ideas in all management plans locally; Work to raise the management of non-SSSIs in
National Parks – first work out where the sources of financing are – Natural England
schemes, public and private investment; Prioritise better management of semi-natural
habitats over creation; Find opportunities for quick wins (e.g. large areas with few owners);
Outside NPs – establish means of co-ordinating activity (e.g. between County Councils/
Wildlife Trusts etc); Encourage the National Trust to develop more ‘landscape scale
initiatives’; Monitor the outcomes and learn from the results.
Influence OFWAT to allow actions on non-owned land; Review OFWAT framework to allow
biodiversity to become a legitimate objective of spend (even where unrelated to water
quality); Aim for consistency of approach to catchment management across water
companies.
d. Actions for specific places or organisations:
i.
National Park Authorities: NPAs hold a gathering to identify and share all projects
already going on – rationalise and build on these; Hold national discussion between
ENPAA and NAAONB on how best to access HLF in the long term – e.g. co-ordinated
bids nationally etc.
ii.
Yorkshire: YDS to encourage YDNPA/ YDMT to consider options for continuation of
the successful “Haytime” project (e.g. through PR/ fundraising/ volunteer support);
Talk to North York Moors NPA re ‘CAN DO’ area, and woodland restoration project.
15
iii.
Lake District: Up our game in the Lake District on Ecological Restoration Zones;
Communicate more, bigger, better, joined up to the farming community in Cumbria;
Approach neighbours to see if we can extend the philosophy of wild land that is
bigger and better connected (Wild Ennerdale, Lake District).
iv.
Broads: Develop a biodiversity delivery plan with conservation partners in the
Broads.
10. Next steps
Campaign for National Parks, working with everyone represented at the event, will take forward
the outcomes of this workshop by:
o
Issuing a press release immediately after the event (see Annex 5)
o
Drawing up a report summarising ideas and messages coming forward (this report),
and distribute/ communicate this widely amongst key stakeholders operating in
National Parks and further afield
o
Integrating these messages into our campaigning work with Defra, other
Government departments like CLG, DECC, DfT etc, to help achieve the ambition
identified
o
Working with National Park Authorities and others to facilitate and encourage the
step change needed on the ground
o
Considering a follow-up event in the South Downs National Park to explore some of
these issues in more detail.
16
Annexes
Annex 1: List of abbreviations
AONB = Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
CAP = Common Agricultural Policy
Defra = Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs
ENPAA = English National Park Authorities Association
ERZ = Ecological Restoration Zone
FC = Forestry Commission
FWAG = Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group
GWCT = Game and Wildlife Conservancy Trust
HLF = Heritage Lottery Fund
IBDA = Integrated Biodiversity Delivery Area
MSFN = Making Space for Nature report
MOD = Ministry of Defence
NAAONB = National Association of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
NE = Natural England
NERC = Natural Environment Research Council
NEWP = Natural Environment White Paper
NPA = National Park Authority
NT = National Trust
NWT = Northumberland Wildlife Trust
OFWAT = the water services regulation authority in England and Wales
SSSIs = Sites of Special Scientific Interest
YDS = Yorkshire Dales Society
YDNPA = Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority
YDMT = Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust
17
Annex 2: List of participants
Name
Organisation
1.
Adrian Phillips
National Trust
2.
3.
Andrea Graham
Andrea Kelly
NFU
Broads Authority
4.
Anne Robinson
CNP Chair
5.
Ben Rayner
PDNPA member
6.
Catherine Flitcroft
BMC
7.
Chris Dean
Moors for the Future
8.
Chris Reid
CNP
9. Claire Collyer
10. David
Henshilwood
CLA
11. David Shaw
12. Emily Brennan
NE
South Downs NPA
13. Frances Winder
Woodland Trust
14. Gareth Browning
FC (North West)
15. Gareth Morgan
RSPB
16. Gill Thompson
Northumberland NPA
17. Hugh Thornton
Yorkshire Dales Society
18. Irene Evison
CNP trustee
19. Jean Johnston
NE (NW)
20. John Anfield
CNP trustee
21. John Gorst
Unites Utilities
NE (Landscape)
22. John Lawton
23. Julia Aglionby
24. Julian Harlow
NE (Economist)
25. Maddy Jago
NE (Director - landscape and biodiversity)
26. Mark Robins
RSPB
27. Meriel Martin
ENPAA
28. Moira Owen
MOD
29. Nancy Stedman
NE (Y&H)
30. Nick Atkinson
Woodland Trust
31. Nigel Stone
Exmoor NPA
32. Pamela Abbott
NE (facilitator)
33. Pat Thompson
RSPB
34. Paul Hamblin
ENPAA
35. Paul Jackson
Howardian Hills AONB and NAAONB Board Vice Chairman
36. Peter Barfoot
NYM NPA
37. Anne Armitstead
NE (Y&H)
38. Rachel Pickering
NYM NPA
39. Rhodri Thomas
40. Richard Leafe
41. Rona Charles
Peak District NPA
LDNPA
NYM NPA
18
42. Ruth Chambers
43. Sarah Webster
CNP
Defra
44. Simon Pryor
45. Steven Turnbull
46. Tom Dearnley
Forestry Commission
John Muir Trust
FC (North East)
47. Tom Oliver
48. Tony MitchellJones
GWCT
NE (Biodiversity)
Annex 3: Feedback on the event
I liked:
The event as a whole – especially the clarity of presentations; Speakers were excellent – and set up
the context for discussions very well; Good representation and slots for organisations and interests;
Well organised, good speakers, thought provoking, good facilitator – and lots of interesting people
to talk with; Good mix of people, well organised and chaired; Open discussion – good mix of
speakers; Excellently-led open-minded discussion; Interesting and thought provoking discussion with
good networking; Good mix of participants; Good update and networking – thanks!;
Format of day with ‘cabaret’ style discussion worked really well; Good participation and atmosphere
– good opportunity for everyone to contribute;
Map exercise made it real; Importance of follow-up circulation of material to delegates;
Great to see CNP taking a positive hand in taking this agenda forward;
Excited by the huge potential; “I liked the enthusiasm that the Lawton report has liberated”;
All seem to be moving in the same direction – now we need to make it happen; Recognition of multipurpose benefits of woodland in the landscape;
Biscuits were brilliant!
I’d change:
Could have moved people to different tables after lunch to give opportunity for new conversations;
Presentations and question sessions were useful and should have had more time; Too many
facilitators;
Need practical solutions to communicate messages outside of conservation community; More
landowning interests needed; More of these meetings needed with NP landscape leads;
More focus on what is already going on in NPs; Less focus on central Government; NP purposes
misrepresented in speech; Room not an ideal shape.
19
Annex 4: Map exercise results
Each group was asked to develop spatial plans for an ecological network in a 10x10km square area of
a National Park (either South Downs or Lake District) by adding approximately 1000 ha of restored or
newly created habitat to the existing habitats. Results are shown below.
20
Annex 5: CNP Press release following the workshop event (14th April)
National Parks at the heart of a new wildlife agenda
National Parks will become the beating heart of a new vision for wildlife recovery – as set out in a review by
top wildlife experts. Professor Sir John Lawton, who chaired the independent review panel ‘Making Space for
Nature’, was talking to an audience at the Campaign for National Parks’ seminar today in York. He laid down
this challenge:
“We want to see everyone working together to make National Parks, from the Lake District to Dartmoor,
exhibit their huge potential for the recovery of wildlife and ecosystems. Our wildlife and habitats, on which we
all depend, are under severe pressure: from climate change, land use development, and intensive farming
practices. Existing protected areas for wildlife, like nature reserves, are not enough.
“We need wildlife sites which are bigger, better connected and managed in ways that help their species to
adapt to the changing climate. National Parks have much to offer in showing how this can be done.”
This challenge threw open a lively discussion amongst the audience of farmers, voluntary sector and
community groups, businesses, scientists and Government agencies, keen to identify actions to take forward
this vital agenda in National Parks.
After the event, Anne Robinson, Chair of the Campaign for National Parks, said, “We are thrilled with the
enthusiasm we have seen from people who clearly care deeply about the future of National Parks and their
wildlife. We hope that the Government is listening, and that the forthcoming White Paper on the Natural
Environment and the new England Biodiversity Strategy will be ambitious and supportive of this vision for
wildlife recovery and the important role that National Parks can play.”
Professor Adrian Phillips, a trustee of the National Trust, said, “Our experiences of nature within beautiful
landscapes like National Parks, provides food for our souls. The fate of our society is closely bound to the fate
of nature. We let it slip away at our peril.”
Claire Collyer, representing the Country Land and Business Association, intimated that “Land owners and land
managers within National Parks are keen to rise to this challenge – after all they are the ones with the skills
and expertise to make the networks a reality. Land managers must be rewarded adequately for the work they
do for wildlife, either through the market place or with grants.”
Gareth Morgan of the RSPB drew attention to the likely reductions in Government and EU grants for farmers:
“To pay for wildlife recovery on the scale suggested by the ‘Making Space for Nature’ review, we will need a
massive stretch of current resources. However, by coupling public grants with payments from the private
sector, we could start to make this happen”.
John Gorst, from United Utilities, helpfully pointed out that “The quality of the water we supply to customers
is closely linked to how the land is managed. Good management for water, like tree planting and livestock
grazing levels that reduce soil erosion, is also good for wildlife. On our owned catchments we are working with
farmers and investing in farm businesses to change their practices to improve water quality”.
Richard Leafe, who runs the Lake District National Park Authority, identified the importance of creative
partnerships to make action for wildlife happen. “There is a groundswell of opinion in the Lakes around the
vital importance of nature and the environment to our daily lives. We are committed to the vision set out in
the review and want to work with and through the Lake District National Park Partnership to make this
happen.”
21