With the election of the first Labour government since I was in primary school, there exists an opportunity for a new beginning across all aspects of policy. Not only to fix the last 14 years of wreckage wrought by austerity and deregulation, but to build a fairer and more sustainable society than existed in 2010. This applies as much to our natural environment as it does to anything else, and the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Steve Reed, has a mammoth task ahead.
Among the environmental priorities in Labour’s manifesto was the publication of a Land Use Framework, something recommended by a parliamentary committee early last year, but which the Tories ignored. Reed will also be responsible for rolling out the Environmental Land Management Schemes, replacing EU farm subsidies.
However, a commitment Labour had previously made, and has since ditched, was to implement a Right to Roam across England’s countryside, in line with that already existing in Scotland.
Reed seems to understand the need for improved public access to nature, but the manifesto was woefully inadequate on this, promising nine new National River Walks – whatever that means – and three new National Forests. For context, we currently have access to just eight per cent of England’s land, and just three per cent of waterways (much of which can’t be reached without trespassing to get there).
These crumbs being offered by Labour are insulting, and the Right to Roam campaign should continue putting pressure on the government, with support from the four new Green MPs.
Accessing green spaces is good for us
We know that access to green space confers mental health benefits, can reduce the economic burden of mental illness, and reduce disparities in health outcomes between wealthy and more deprived areas. Moreover, people who experience nature are generally more inclined to care for and protect it, and vice versa.
With people increasingly crammed into urban environments, if we have limited rights to access the countryside beyond, then the result is what the American entomologist Robert Pyle termed ‘the extinction of experience,’ whereby we lose our emotional stake in the living world.
A Right to Roam is not only important for our own psychological wellbeing and social justice, but also to maintain our understanding and connection with biodiversity, on which successful conservation ultimately depends.
That isn’t to say that a Right to Roam would be without drawbacks, or that it would be applicable to all land – additional limits may be required to prevent unnecessary problems for biodiversity.
Human recreational presence can be sufficient to cause disturbance to wildlife, particularly birds. Studies have shown that experimentally walking through forest areas during a period of territory establishment reduces the number of territories and species richness of birds in those areas.
Another study found that blue tit chicks that hatched at weekends or public holidays close to a recreational picnic area grew more slowly and fledged in poorer condition compared to those that hatched outside of holidays.
It’s not just birds that are impacted by human disturbance. Wild carnivores tend to be less abundant in recreational areas compared to areas where people don’t visit.
Dogs are the elephant in the room
As problematic as human disturbance can be, when it comes to the conflict between public access and wildlife disturbance, the elephant in the room is in fact a dog. The walking of dogs in peri-urban green space reduces bird abundance and diversity below and beyond the impact of human presence alone, even when they’re kept on the lead.
Moreover, dog walking creates a more chronic impact on habitats via the dumping of nutrients in urine and faeces, likely sufficient to alter vegetation communities, allowing a few nutrient-demanding species like nettles, docs and grasses to outcompete a more diverse and specialist flora.
These disturbances present an important conservation issue which must be balanced against the benefits of greater public access to nature. One way of doing this might be to create some IUCN Category 1a or 1b strictly protected areas, where human access is limited around important biodiversity sites.
Currently, only a vanishingly small area of UK land falls into these categories, and despite the IUCN colloquially referring to its Category II sites as ‘national parks,’ no UK National Parks are above Category V. Existing Sites of Special Scientific Interest might also be closed to public access, at least during important times of the year such as bird nesting seasons.
Dogs should arguably be banned from all Protected Areas; while public access to the countryside and nature should be a right, owning a dog is a choice, and walking it in protected sites exerts disproportionate harm on our common heritage. This restriction could be offset partly by using the Strategic Alternative Natural Green Space Strategy, whereby alternative public green spaces are established near important biodiversity sites to divert public footfall.
And of course, any expansion of the right to roam should be accompanied by greater promotion of the Countryside Code.
All of these sensible limitations can be applied – and probably with public goodwill – against a default Right to Roam. Labour shouldn’t be kowtowing to the landowners shutting us out of our own country, but should rather reinstate its previous commitment to equal access to nature for all, by expanding the Scottish access model across England.
That was the principle on which it created our National Parks in the first place.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
