Written by Henrietta Appleton, Policy Officer (England)
3 Minute Read
The announcement of the Landscape Recovery element of the Environmental Land Management Scheme was greeted with enthusiasm by those who advocate rewilding approaches. Although the scheme wording does not refer to rewilding, the focus on radical and large-scale approaches to threatened native species recovery and priority habitat condition seemed to support such an approach. Indeed, this was inferred further by the Secretary of State’s reference to Knepp and the “nature-led recovery of habitats” in his Oxford Farming Conference speech.
Closer examination of the scheme’s criteria for the pilots (longevity, environmental objectives (which differ depending on whether the project is for species recovery or stream/river restoration), carbon and climate resilience and social impact) allows a different interpretation. In fact, given our breadth of knowledge, evidence and expertise, we would argue species recovery requires a very different approach to rewilding - management.
All the evidence we have from our species recovery projects is that habitat recovery alone is not enough - and that in many cases the ‘best’ habitat is when a tree or shrub or land cover is at a particular point in time i.e. growth stage. For example, black grouse and tree cover; the nesting, brood rearing and winter cover requirements of the grey partridge; sward height or spring cropping for lapwing nesting; medium length mixed vegetation for curlew breeding habitat etc.
The key additional management in all these cases is predator control and, in many others, supplementary feeding. The three-legged stool approach to species recovery and management is based on science - it is not an old wives tale!
Rewilding approaches therefore may not result in the ambitions desired when it comes to Turtle Dove, Grey Partridge, Lapwing, Curlew or even Nightingale recovery and given the timescales for the Landscape Recovery Scheme (20 years) it may be too late before this is known; unless we follow the science and choose approaches that are proven to deliver.
What rewilding does is challenge the traditional ‘management’ model of the countryside - and this is perhaps where we can take a lesson. It is clear going forward that food production may need to play second fiddle to other economic land management models for some farmland types. The drive for food security post the second world war resulted in considerable investment in under-field drainage systems to improve the productivity of the more marginal arable land, such as occurred on the Allerton estate.
These systems have succumbed to damage from the use of heavier vehicles, deeper ploughs and general wear and tear and in many cases will require investment to make them fit for purpose. Yet the yields from this land may not make such investment economic without Government subsidy - which is no longer available. Such farms may therefore be enticed to convert to carbon or conservation farming - or indeed rewilding.
Whilst in theory there is room for all these different approaches and landowner motivation will be a factor in which is chosen (and ELMS is trying to aid all approaches), the truth is that what we need is a new way of managing land.
I have just read a very interesting book (The Wild Places by Robert Macfarlane) which suggested that wildness need not just be at scale (i.e. landscapes) but it can be found in the smallest sign of nature. This suggests that each farm can consist of a mosaic of food, carbon, biodiversity, water and wildness areas; but importantly we believe that each needs to be maximised - or managed? - to get the best of all worlds. Or is that just pie in the sky?
The link to Amazon on this page is an affiliate link.