[mrjonathanr]

Interesting article about National Park management by George Monbiot in today’s Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/28/britain-national-parks-reclaim-rewild

[turnipturned]

George Monbiot, the master of over simplifying inherently complex land management issue with blissful ignorance!

[GazM]

Dunno about blissful ignorance, but he does make it sound a lot simpler than it is. Possibly because most people haven't got the first clue about what's actually going on in the UK's uplands so he's putting it in nice bite size chunks.

For my part, I agree with much of what he's saying.  Our national parks should be places where land is managed for the public benefit of the many, not using the archaic methods of the past that only benefit a few.

[r-man]

From my layman's reading of this, the central issue in that article is: why is grouse shooting given priority over conservation?

When the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust offers to manage a section of land but the National Trust chooses instead to look for grouse-shooting tenants, against the wishes of local residents, it does seem like this is the case.

As you both suggest, the situation may be complex. Does anyone have any links to articles which offer a different view?

[GazM]

I can only really point you to the reams and reams of information that tend to support his argument in these two regularly updated blogs.

http://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/
http://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/

My main concern about national parks (particularly the Scottish ones that I live and work around) are that nature conservation generally plays second fiddle to economic development, despite the fact that their statutory aims state that conserving and enhancing the natural and cultural heritage take precedent.

[tomtom]

I had a big think about this....

I agree with alot of Mobiots general sentiments (the role of grouse burning in reducing biodiversity - and I generally think our uplands should be allowed to return to being forested etc..) but..

1. He does not portray all the positive aspects of NP's. E.G. they have prevented the wholesale exploitation of those areas for mining, industry and more recently property development. They are maintained/preserved and managed to prevent excessive use/wear etc.. in honeypot areas. There are many other positives he doesnt mention - but in a mega crowded island like ours they are green(ish) lungs for many parts of the country...

2. The wider issue is about land ownership - which has alot to do with the wealth inequality in the UK. A huge percentage of land is owned by a remarkably small number of people. Duke of Westminster (I think) is a good example - the Oxbridge Colleges own a bonkers amount - as does the COE. Transfer of this ownership from generation to generation maintains the status quo of rich ruling classes etc.. Inheritance tax should deal with lots of this (its its purpose) but loopholes etc.. Anyway - I'm starting to sound all Marxist - but this does mean that large areas are used for grouse shooting or maintained as moorland. And this complex patchwork of ownership  makes it hard for wholesale changes in our uplands management to be implemented (be this for biodiversity or flood management for example).

3. NP's were set up in the 50's (I think?) and we were far less densely populated then, had a very different industrial profile, and very different concepts of the outdoors and conservation. This legacy of how they were set up probably helps maintain the look of NP's to this date - of often being managed farmland / moorland - as opposed to wilderness areas (which you could argue they should be - and might well be if they were set up afresh now..).   

We should be f*cking glad we have them - given how in N.America Trump is eroding them for $$$$ (mines, fracking, pipeline $$ etc...) but maybe have a re-think about what our 'aim' for NP's are now?

[turnipturned]

GM really annoys me, his messages don't really help anyone except himself.  It unifies the general public to distrust these organisations, who are actually making a huge difference, but unfortunately, they have to work with the current systems in place.

Upland Land management in the UK is hugely complex, and is intrinsically linked to 'subsiding food' through various different avenues. We as a consumer have totally lost the concept and value of food. In the most part this is due to us not understanding how many times we actually pay for food (whether that is through taxes or directly paying for food). So we are kind of stuck with a model that doesn't properly subsidies food and doesn't properly look after the environment.

Upland land owners have a huge amount to offer in terms of providing public services, we can term this Natural Capital; Carbon Storage, Natural Flood Management, Habitat, ACCESS (which for this forum is important), clean drinking water etc.... Managing these services and assets need to be paid for effectively. I personally think a 'Payment by results' (which the National Parks, National Trust are investing a huge amount of time and money into) is the right way to go. Getting paid for services that you provide rather than prescriptive rules and regulations you have to meet (which aren't properly regulated). It also helps to create a community that is better informed and educated.

I could go on....

Payments by results: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/rbaps/articles/2_en.htm
Natural Capital: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/natural-capital-and-farming-like-peas-in-a-pod/