By Henrietta Appleton, GWCT Policy Officer (England)
I was delighted to read that the Minister for Food Security was out in the field visiting an upland farm and listening to farmers concerns about the SFI. I think it is vital that the uplands are seen as ‘a special case’ given the demands that are now placed on it.
The analysis we did of grouse moor management’s contribution to government policy identified 12 public goods and services from food production to recreation and biodiversity. Just focussing on one outcome such as carbon sequestration or nature recovery can lead to negative consequences for other desired outcomes.
As the UK National Ecosystem Assessment in 2011 identified, these places have distinctive cultural identities reflecting decades (even centuries) of management. It is this history that makes a call for a reduction in management through destocking or restrictions on prescribed burning a struggle for some to accept.
Much of our uplands are protected through landscape or other designations such as SPAs and SSSIs reflecting the outcomes of historic management practices. These attributes are easily lost if management changes or is withdrawn. That is not a criticism of this approach just that the ‘new’ attributes will present as a new landscape with different species.
The question is therefore – “what does society want from our English upland landscape?”
Arguably it is policymakers that need to decide policy priorities and how to progress and in doing so need to balance differing beliefs and values. To achieve this requires collaboration with all stakeholders to co-design policy from the ground up to avoid a one-size fits all policy, a weakness in upland policy identified in the recent Dartmoor Review. A difficult task to say the least.
In July 2023 I wrote a blog which called for greater tolerance in the differing views of upland management. Many regard the uplands as a ‘contested landscape’ fuelled by polarised views on prescribed burning, predation management and the illegal killing of birds of prey. This frustrates me enormously. Ultimately all parties have the same priorities – to conserve our wildlife and protect our environment. But where we differ is in our values and beliefs.
This is the elephant in the room.
We (and others) can provide scientific evidence about different upland managements, their contribution to climate change and nature recovery and point to the positives and negatives of them, but ultimately data does not influence beliefs. It may reinforce them through ‘preaching to the converted’ but given that environmental and conservation science does not produce the black and white answers that many require (due to the complexities and interrelationships of our natural ecosystems), it merely frustrates those who disagree.
So how do we turn a conflict into an opportunity?
The IUCN recently produced guidelines on human-wildlife conflict and co-existence to help formulate strategies where different valid views are held. It is vital therefore that upland stakeholders come together and use these guidelines to seek a resolution. The key word here to me is co-existence. Synonyms for this are harmony and peace. Wouldn’t it be lovely if the future for the uplands was just this – other than of course hearing the evocative sounds of the abundant Curlew!