Written by Mike Skuse

When the National Park debate started last year, we all thought that it would be plain sailing, and that the Welsh Government’s Manifesto promise of a new National Park(NP) based on the  CRDV National Landscape (NL)  would be delivered without too much trouble. (For those not following this saga closely, AONBs are now known UK-wide as National Landscapes).

We were wrong. We had not counted on the reaction of our County Councils, nor of the farming NGOs, especially that of the National Farmers Union, who have told NRW that designation will stifle farming enterprise and hinder efficient land based  businesses in many ways. They stopped short of using the word “object” in a seven page letter, saying that they wanted to be informed about every new development.

At the time of writing, mid January, two of the four County Councils, Powys and Flintshire, have objected to designation, mostly on the grounds of cost at a difficult time.

And the other farming/landowning groups have all had meetings and have doubts, mainly about planning restrictions and increased visitor pressure leading to all manner of problems on farms.

Finally, I suspect that a significant percentage of the residents in the NL and in the proposed new NP boundaries are saying “Why bother? Leave it alone. It’s perfectly OK as it is.”

…….So  we need to restate CPRW’s position, and to list all the positive reasons why a NP trumps a NL, and get this message out to everybody involved. I remind members of this Branch that we have  firmly supported designation from the very start.  So this is what we think………

  1. The Local Economy. No matter how strapped for cash our Senedd is, the funding for a NP is much much higher than that for a NL. In the 2024/2025 financial year, the three NPs in Wales received about £16.88 million; and the five NLs received only £1.9 million.  This big difference recognises the importance to the Welsh economy by way of visitors   and reflects the importance of these areas for really professional and well-funded wildlife regeneration. NPs can afford much greater employment of expert wardens in the field. Example: perhaps we might even save the curlew, with more money and (even) more expertise?
  2. The Environment.  The number one priority  for this new NP must be to improve the whole place for wildlife, and to change forestry and farming practices to enable this. We need broadleaf trees, clean waters,  and more peat in the uplands.  Example: maybe we can save the pine martens at Vyrnwy?  There is so much to do everywhere.  And of course the environment is important for people too. ‘Quiet recreation’  is one of the two requirements of a NP according to the old enabling Act of Parliament in 1949. What is wrong with encouraging those less fortunate than us to visit us from smokey cities? It is our civic duty to do so.
  3. Farming. NPs have much better access to a number of funds not available outside their boundaries, and helping to secure them will be offered by the NP Authority.  I will come to the way an NP is managed next.  It is clearly in the interests of management to run a successful NP, and to attract public and private funds to it. Such funds will be channelled into agriculture and forestry before anything else. Example: more and better dry stone walling; more native deciduous woodlands; better footpath management.

It is worth mentioning here that NPs enjoy prestige far beyond their boundaries. Every country in the world calls it’s most protected places NPs. We here would be on a par with Yellowstone, Kruger, Serengeti, Masai Mara, and Kosciuszko.  What’s not to  like?  We would benefit by sharing ideas, not least with other farmers all over the world – to see how they fare inside their ultimate protected places.

  1. Governance.  Who will actually run the NP will be discussed endlessly until decision time!  It might be useful at this early stage to look at the governance structure of Eryri NP (Snowdonia).  This is run by an ‘Authority’ comprising 5 people appointed by the Welsh Government, 9 by Cyngor Gwynedd, and 4 by Conwy CBC.  It seems  that they are all chosen because they have a special knowledge of the area and that the Planning Committee is all of them!   This is unlike the Planning Committees of the 4 County Councils sharing our current NL,  most of whom represent wards in urban areas of the four counties, with no special knowledge, or I dare say interest, in rural matters.

These 18 people, all well informed and dedicated to the well-being of the mountains and valleys of this internationally famous place, are supported by a large staff, from Chief Executive Officer (some of us will remember Jonathan Cawley from his time at DCC) and Corporate Services Officer, with 12 Heads of Departments, eg Finance, Property, Conservation, Personnel.  And below them in the pecking order are scores of people repairing footpaths, planting trees, talking to farmers, helping visitors, and doing all the other things we expect when we visit.

  1. I end by saying that we hope that this new National Park will be different from the standard model.  It must be firmly based on current requirements for the restoration of nature, and it must encourage people living in our cities and towns to come here and breathe fresh countryside air!

I am obliged to Gareth Ludkin and his colleagues at the Campaign for National Parks, for help from their booklet ‘The Value of a New National Park in Wales’.

Mike Skuse.

P.S.

Darren Millar MS tells me that he supports the concept of a National Park, but only if the boundaries are set within the existing NL (ie AONB).  He also wants management to be firmly in the hands of local councillors “rather than a “new unnecessary bureaucracy and National Park Authority”.  Members will understand that this is a long way from CPRW’s position.

 

[instagram-feed feed=1]