BEHIND THE HEADLINES

Are our parks failing nature?

Protected landscapes are doing little to halt the decline of wildlife across the UK, according to a recent report. What can be done to reverse the fortunes of nature in these much-heralded havens? Mark Rowe reports on the latest updates

WHAT’S THE STORY?

Protected areas of the countryside, such as national parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are doing little to safeguard wildlife, according to a recent report by the British Ecological Society (BES). In many instances, nature is struggling more inside these areas than outside them. While 26% of British land is notionally protected, the report found that just 51% of protected areas are in a favourable condition. This jeopardises the Government’s ‘30×30’ policy – to protect 30% of all four nations’ land and seas for nature by 2030.

“Even the most protected sites can still be subject to inappropriate development, such as new housing estates”

The University of York’s Professor Jane Hill, one of the authors of the BES report, is concerned the real figure – of land that is meaningfully protected for nature – is possibly as low as 5%. “If national parks are not designated to improve biodiversity then you can’t really include them in the 30%,” she says.

“The report is spot on and highlights the challenges we face in getting to 30×30,” says Elliot Chapman-Jones, head of public affairs at the Wildlife Trusts. “We need to achieve 30×30 as it is a key way to really turn around the fortunes of wildlife in this country. It seems a lot of the numbers quoted are little more than self-congratulation,” adds Chapman-Jones. “You can’t cook the books. Even the most protected sites – Special Areas of Conservation – can still be subject to inappropriate development, such as new housing estates.”

“National parks do not really convey much protection for wildlife,” explains Lee Schofield of the RSPB. “Their primary purpose is landscape aesthetics rather than nature. SSSIs inside the Lake District National Park tend to be in less favourable condition than those outside it.”

WHY AREN’T PROTECTED AREAS ALWAYS THE BEST FOR NATURE?

Disturbance
Visitor numbers have an impact, but even though the Lake District National Park gets 20 million visitors a year and the Peak District 13 million, this is not thought to be the most significant problem. “Most national parks are in upland areas, and uplands in general have been abused through agricultural policy, grazing, forestry, drainage, burning, managing for shooting,” says the RSPB’s Lee Schofield. “They are higher and wetter, so wildlife takes longer to recover there than it does elsewhere.”

The wrong kind of protection
The BES report says some of the UK’s largest protected areas do not – and were not designed to – prioritise biodiversity. It advises that “the areas that count must effectively protect nature in practice, and not merely exist as lines on a map.” “We haven’t necessarily protected the right areas over the years,” says Schofield. “When protections were set up after the war, there wasn’t the awareness of nature or of climate change as a thing.

But what we have now is a cluttered countryside – 70% of rural areas are farmland – so it’s harder to identify areas to protect.” Another issue is land in national parks tends to be in private hands, owned by water companies or the National Trust, for example. “This means the park authorities don’t have many levers to pull to help wildlife,” says Schofield.

Poor monitoring
The picture is further clouded because no-one really knows just how bad the situation really is for wildlife. The BES report concludes that differences in monitoring and reporting make it difficult to assess how many protected sites are recovering; 78% of SSSIs in England have not been monitored in the past six years. Meanwhile, up to 98% of the UK’s offshore Marine Protected Areas have been subject to bottom-trawling fishing that disturbs benthic habitats.

WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS?

Better local involvement Lee Schofield believes national parks need to build on what they already do well but include more local representation. “What parks do well is planning; making sure development doesn’t happen in the wrong places,” he says.

“Inclusivity is important,” says Jane Hill. “Local people have to be involved in deciding what happens, and also in projects. If you don’t have everybody’s support it’s not going to work. We have to recognise that people are part of nature.”

Better evaluation and monitoring
“We have a fantastic record of monitoring in this country, of how species are doing,” says Hill. “But we don’t really monitor what difference protected areas make to species.” “It’s complicated to do, it needs to be invested in,” adds Schofield. “At the moment we rely on people like us at the RSPB, the Wildlife Trusts and others to produce reports, but you need support, more than goodwill. We need to make sure the agencies of protection are properly funded; that Natural England, the Environment Agency have the capacity to support and police the work they have to do,” believes Schofield. “The principle of public payment for public good is key to this but it needs to be properly funded and well done – then it will be transformational.”

New designations
“Sites need to be better, bigger and more joined up,” says Chapman-Jones. “Giving national parks a statutory remit to protect nature will make a difference.” The Wildlife Trusts believes a new designation for protection covering what it describes as “wild belt” land is required. “These are areas that are currently of low biodiversity value but which a community is involved in enhancing and rewilding. At the moment they have little protection.”

CASE STUDIES

IN TROUBLE

The Afon Dyfrdwy/River Dee flows through North Wales and into north-west England and this freshwater ecosystem is covered by SSSIs. Five fish species, including Atlantic salmon, bullhead and lamprey, as well as otter, were once common along the river. A recent exercise to assess the invertebrate, plant and habitat features along the river found them to be in unfavourable condition.

The river faces several pressures along its length and across its catchment: there is a long history of modification for navigation, agricultural drainage and development. The river is popular for fishing and tourism, and is surrounded by farmland for most of its length. Physical modifications, such as channel straightening, removal of trees, embankments causing disconnection of the floodplain, and many weirs, all contribute to habitat degradation. “Diffuse pollution from both rural and urban areas and point source pollution also threaten the species present,” says the BES report.

IMPROVING

Lyme Bay in Dorset shows that restricting certain fishing practices can not only enhance wildlife but fatten fishing yields too.

The Lyme Bay MPA was designated in 2008 and the use of dredging and trawling banned.

This was primarily to protect the inshore reef environment. Static gear fishing (using pots and nets) and collection of scallops by scuba divers was still allowed. These restrictions resulted in positive changes in species richness and seven of 13 indicator species have increased in abundance. There have also been significant increases in landings of scallops and brown crabs both inside and outside the MPA.