Tag Archives: national

Brazil – 10% of national parks and indigenous lands face mining threat Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




All eyes are on Brazil following the re-election of Dilma Rousseff as president after an eventful campaign in which the strongly pro-environment candidate Marina Silva was squarely defeated.

Now, the country’s green credentials are seriously at risk. In a new report in the journal Science, researchers from Brazil and the UK (including myself) highlight the danger of new plans to allow mining and dams in protected areas and indigenous lands.

Congressional debates to approve or reject proposed legislation will decide if Brazil will retain its hard-won status as what The Economist calls “the world leader in reducing environmental degradation”.

The new government is at a crossroads: either maintain the integrity and long-term future of its globally significant ecosystems – or favour industrial interests by allowing 10% of even strictly protected areas to be mined.

While the proposals include mitigation measures (protecting land elsewhere) these are unrealistic and also inadequate because they fail to account for the indirect impacts of mines.

Developing mines and hydropower dams in protected areas would represent a reversal for Brazilian law-makers and a body blow to environmental agencies, credited with drastically reducing Amazonian deforestation over the past decade.

The gruesome twosome – damming and mining

Mega-projects have mega-impacts and in the Amazon, mining and damming go hand in hand. Mining is energy intensive and is one of the underlying reasons for Brazil developing dozens of large hydropower plants in Amazonia.

Hydroelectric dams can harm both society and the environment. For example, I was alarmed to see how severe flooding in Rondônia state this year led to economic paralysis and the spread of water-borne diseases in towns and countryside along the Madeira River.

The flooding of the Madeira in both Brazil and upriver in Bolivia was suspected to have been caused by the recently completed Jirau hydropower dam. Under current plans, very few protected areas will remain free from the influence of hydroelectric dams.

Mining projects such as the enormous Carajás iron ore mine in eastern Amazonia (see photo), powered by construction of the controversial Tucuruí dam in the 1970s, are only the tip of the iceberg. Mineral extraction in Brazil is poised to expand into what were previously considered no-go areas for industrial development.

Protected lands are a essential safeguard

Our research found that in the Amazon alone 34,117km2 of strictly protected areas and 281,443km2 of indigenous lands are in areas of registered mining interest. Forget football fields, this is an area larger than the whole of the UK.

The direct impacts of mines and dams are eclipsed by the indirect effects, as thousands of workers follow mega-development projects into protected areas. Rapid population growth in service towns causes urban areas, roads and farmland to expand into surrounding forests.

By 2000, Brazil had created the world’s largest protected area network, covering an enormous 2.2m km2 – an area the size of Greenland.

These parks have been highly effective. For example, by reducing deforestation rates to only 10-15% of those in surrounding areas, Brazil’s protected areas contribute to mitigating future climate change.

The beneficiaries of climate mitigation range from farmers in the south of Brazil who depend on Amazonia for their rainfall, to the poorest people in developing countries who stand to bear the brunt of global warming, sea-level rise and extreme climatic events.

Brazil’s protected areas go far beyond just saving the forests themselves and support traditional peoples, including rubber-tappers and Brazil-nut harvesters.

In addition, indigenous lands provide a safe space to maintain the traditions and cultures of the country’s 305 indigenous ethnic groups, including 69 uncontacted groups.

Brazil gets richer, but protected areas remain under-funded and under-staffed

Get-rich-quick mining is not a new threat to Brazil’s unique ecosystems. I have witnessed the decade-long struggle of a strictly protected area, the Jari Ecological Station in Pará, to remove illegal gold-mining from within its borders.

However, it is harrowing to now see 71% of the park (an area larger than Greater London) being under official consideration for mining operations. Even if ‘only’ 10% of the park is used for mining, indirect effects will change it for ever.

Relevant federal departments need adequate resources to ensure government decisions are made democratically and with reliable impact assessments. Chronic under-staffing in Brazil’s protected areas means that many lack basic information on baseline environmental conditions and diversity of plants and animals.

Buffer areas designed to protect parks from external threats are put at risk, and a lack of staffing and data puts ICMBio (the agency responsible for protecting parks) in a weak position from which to assess the potential impacts of dams or mining on the integrity of a park.

Brazil’s population is growing and increasingly wealthy, which means higher demands for energy and food. Some difficult decisions will have to be made.

However, environmental impact assessments and mitigation measures (in some cases impossible to achieve and in most cases not implemented anyway) surrounding proposed mega-projects have fallen short of international best practice and largely ignore indirect impacts.

I hope that Brazil reasserts its status as a leader of green development and does not legislate against her national treasures.

 

 

Luke Parry is Lecturer in Ecosystem Services, Lancaster Environment Centre at Lancaster University. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




386536

UK faces serious winter blackout risk – National Grid’s rosy nuclear forecast fails reality test Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




National Grid says that the country has the electricity generating capacity to meet the average maximum need over the course of the UK winter.

But this calculation critically depends on the reliability of power stations as well as an accurate assessment of the true generating capacity of each plant.

This article looks at National Grid’s assumptions on power station availability over the next months and casts a somewhat surprised eye on its apparent errors, particularly in calculating the likely output from nuclear stations.

These mistakes – if they are mistakes – may not matter. The Grid has introduced new payments for cutting electricity demand, meaning that the spare capacity margin is around 3.4 GW or 6% of maximum expected demand in the average year.

However what I believe may be its errors over nuclear power reduce this number by at 50% at the very least. It seems strange that the business at the centre of the electricity industry in this country appears to be substantially over-optimistic in its assessment of power supply.

If you don’t like the evidence – ignore it

It seems that National Grid has ignored evidence published by EdF that its nuclear power stations cannot possibly reach the output that the Grid projects over the winter months.

Last year, National Grid estimated that the average availability of electricity generators would be 79.4% of rated capacity over winter 2013/14.

The figures ranged from a low 25% for wind (for obvious meteorological reasons) to 97% for pumped storage plants. For plants subject to the possibility of mechanical or other failure, such as coal power stations, the number tends to be between 80 and 90%.

This year, even in the face of strong, repeated and growing evidence of declining mechanical performance of our ageing power stations, National Grid has increased its estimate of the reliability of the main types of power station, coal, gas and nuclear. Across all power plants, the expected availability rises from 79.4% to 81.8%.

Perhaps this seems a small change. However it raises the amount of capacity the Grid expects to be ready to meet peak winter demand by about 1.7 GW. This is half the buffer that the Grid says will be available on the day of highest demand in the average winter. When margins are tight, apparently small changes really matter.

The striking errors in National Grid’s nuclear forecast

Perhaps most strikingly, National Grid has raised its assessment of the nuclear fleet’s availability, and by more than any other major type of power station. It predicts that 90% of the UK nuclear capacity will be working at the point of maximum demand, up from 84% last year.

In the face of repeated unplanned shut downs at EdF’s plants this year, I can think of absolutely no reason for this enhanced optimism. And, indeed, National Grid’s cheery forecast is not shared by Ofgem, which held its estimate at 81% availability, in its report in mid-summer.

The Ofgem document actually predates the unplanned closures at Hartlepool and Heysham 1 that started a couple of months ago and I doubt Ofgem would be as optimistic today.

I looked at the performance of the UK’s nuclear fleet from early December to mid-February this year. Only for a couple of days did it actually achieve the 90% output that National Grid – based on information from operator EdF – suggested it will for 2014 /2015. Average performance was 81% of potential, in line with Ofgem’s more conservative forecasts for this winter and last.

As I write this, only three of EdF’s nuclear generating units out of 16 (in eight power stations on seven sites) are working to their full rated capacity. A further four are operating at 20% below maximum power as a precaution.

Sizewell (one station but two turbine units) is on a planned refuelling stop. Two other units are suffering from mechanical faults and four are being inspected for a possible problem in their boiler units and will return to operation between now and the end of December – although at a lower output than previously. Another plant is returning to full power after refuelling.

The current state of the UK’s nuclear power stations as at 29th October 2014

 

The claimed 90% availability of nuclear plants is impossible

The total nuclear output, including from Wylfa (which is not owned by EdF), is currently (18.00 GMT on October 29th 2014) around 4.5 GW, or less than 50% of potential capacity. Only three stations (and I cannot even be sure about Wylfa) are working to full capacity).

It certainly seems that National Grid is unrealistic in thinking that 90% of nuclear power will be available at the moment of peak need, which typically happens about seven weeks from today in mid-December.

In fact, we already know that 90% is actually not achievable. The total rated capacity of UK nuclear is – according to National Grid – about 9.6 Gigawatts. Both EdF itself and Ofgem give lower figures, and National Grid surely should have noticed this, although the differences are small.

More significantly, 90% of the National Grid figure is slightly more than 8.6 Gigawatts. But, according to EdF’s own public statements, 8.6 GW is unattainable at any point this winter.

  • Heysham 1, Unit 1, is said by EdF to be out until the end of December, past the point of likely peak demand. This reduces maximum output by about 0.6 GW.
  • As Heysham 1, Unit 1 returns to service, the second unit at Hinkley Point B moves offline, cutting power by almost 0.5 GW. So even if peak demand occurs in January, there won’t be additional capacity to meet it.
  • The other unit at Heysham and the two units at Hartlepool are subject to a 20% restriction on output when they return to service at some point during November or December. This cuts maximum output by just under 0.5 GW.
  • The working power stations at Hinkley Point and Hunterston are also subject to precautionary power reductions of about 20%. This reduces potential output by about 0.5 GW.

In total, EdF’s fleet can only produce a maximum of 1.6 GW less than their rated output, or about 8.0 GW. This means that the availability of UK nuclear during winter 2014 / 2015 can only be 85% of the maximum potential, much less than the central National Grid assumption of 90%.

This is before any additional mechanical or electrical problems. The reality is that nuclear output at critical times is, if recent experience is any guide, likely to be little more than 7 GW.

A real prospect of winter blackouts may lie ahead

This reduces the UK’s spare capacity at winter peak by about 1.6 GW, cutting the safety margin by about 50%. A more conservative view of the reliability of gas and coal power stations would have an effect similar in size.

If these numbers are correct, National Grid is being too optimistic in its Winter Outlook and the true position is that a typical winter will bring the UK far closer to power cuts than the company admits. A colder than average winter will make the UK’s position worse.

National Grid hasn’t responded to my written questions on Tuesday afternoon about the overstatement of nuclear availability and other issues.

 

 

Chris Goodall is an expert on energy, environment and climate change. He blogs at Carbon Commentary.

This article was originally published on Carbon Commentary.

 

 




386198

UK faces serious blackout risk this winter – National Grid’s rosy forecast fails reality test Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




National Grid says that the country has the electricity generating capacity to meet the average maximum need over the course of the UK winter.

But this calculation critically depends on the reliability of power stations as well as an accurate assessment of the true generating capacity of each plant.

This article looks at National Grid’s assumptions on power station availability over the next months and casts a somewhat surprised eye on its apparent errors, particularly in calculating the likely output from nuclear stations.

These mistakes – if they are mistakes – may not matter. The Grid has introduced new payments for cutting electricity demand, meaning that the spare capacity margin is around 3.4 GW or 6% of maximum expected demand in the average year.

However what I believe may be its errors over nuclear power reduce this number by at 50% at the very least. It seems strange that the business at the centre of the electricity industry in this country appears to be substantially over-optimistic in its assessment of power supply.

If you don’t like the evidence – ignore it

It seems that National Grid has ignored evidence published by EdF that its nuclear power stations cannot possibly reach the output that the Grid projects over the winter months.

Last year, National Grid estimated that the average availability of electricity generators would be 79.4% of rated capacity over winter 2013/14.

The figures ranged from a low 25% for wind (for obvious meteorological reasons) to 97% for pumped storage plants. For plants subject to the possibility of mechanical or other failure, such as coal power stations, the number tends to be between 80 and 90%.

This year, even in the face of strong, repeated and growing evidence of declining mechanical performance of our ageing power stations, National Grid has increased its estimate of the reliability of the main types of power station, coal, gas and nuclear. Across all power plants, the expected availability rises from 79.4% to 81.8%.

Perhaps this seems a small change. However it raises the amount of capacity the Grid expects to be ready to meet peak winter demand by about 1.7 GW. This is half the buffer that the Grid says will be available on the day of highest demand in the average winter. When margins are tight, apparently small changes really matter.

The striking errors in National Grid’s nuclear forecast

Perhaps most strikingly, National Grid has raised its assessment of the nuclear fleet’s availability, and by more than any other major type of power station. It predicts that 90% of the UK nuclear capacity will be working at the point of maximum demand, up from 84% last year.

In the face of repeated unplanned shut downs at EdF’s plants this year, I can think of absolutely no reason for this enhanced optimism. And, indeed, National Grid’s cheery forecast is not shared by Ofgem, which held its estimate at 81% availability, in its report in mid-summer.

The Ofgem document actually predates the unplanned closures at Hartlepool and Heysham 1 that started a couple of months ago and I doubt Ofgem would be as optimistic today.

I looked at the performance of the UK’s nuclear fleet from early December to mid-February this year. Only for a couple of days did it actually achieve the 90% output that National Grid – based on information from operator EdF – suggested it will for 2014 /2015. Average performance was 81% of potential, in line with Ofgem’s more conservative forecasts for this winter and last.

As I write this, only three of EdF’s nuclear generating units out of 16 (in eight power stations on seven sites) are working to their full rated capacity. A further four are operating at 20% below maximum power as a precaution.

Sizewell (one station but two turbine units) is on a planned refuelling stop. Two other units are suffering from mechanical faults and four are being inspected for a possible problem in their boiler units and will return to operation between now and the end of December – although at a lower output than previously. Another plant is returning to full power after refuelling.

The current state of the UK’s nuclear power stations as at 29th October 2014

 

The claimed 90% availability of nuclear plants is impossible

The total nuclear output, including from Wylfa (which is not owned by EdF), is currently (18.00 GMT on October 29th 2014) around 4.5 GW, or less than 50% of potential capacity. Only three stations (and I cannot even be sure about Wylfa) are working to full capacity).

It certainly seems that National Grid is unrealistic in thinking that 90% of nuclear power will be available at the moment of peak need, which typically happens about seven weeks from today in mid-December.

In fact, we already know that 90% is actually not achievable. The total rated capacity of UK nuclear is – according to National Grid – about 9.6 Gigawatts. Both EdF itself and Ofgem give lower figures, and National Grid surely should have noticed this, although the differences are small.

More significantly, 90% of the National Grid figure is slightly more than 8.6 Gigawatts. But, according to EdF’s own public statements, 8.6 GW is unattainable at any point this winter.

  • Heysham 1, Unit 1, is said by EdF to be out until the end of December, past the point of likely peak demand. This reduces maximum output by about 0.6 GW.
  • As Heysham 1, Unit 1 returns to service, the second unit at Hinkley Point B moves offline, cutting power by almost 0.5 GW. So even if peak demand occurs in January, there won’t be additional capacity to meet it.
  • The other unit at Heysham and the two units at Hartlepool are subject to a 20% restriction on output when they return to service at some point during November or December. This cuts maximum output by just under 0.5 GW.
  • The working power stations at Hinkley Point and Hunterston are also subject to precautionary power reductions of about 20%. This reduces potential output by about 0.5 GW.

In total, EdF’s fleet can only produce a maximum of 1.6 GW less than their rated output, or about 8.0 GW. This means that the availability of UK nuclear during winter 2014 / 2015 can only be 85% of the maximum potential, much less than the central National Grid assumption of 90%.

This is before any additional mechanical or electrical problems. The reality is that nuclear output at critical times is, if recent experience is any guide, likely to be little more than 7 GW.

A real prospect of winter blackouts may lie ahead

This reduces the UK’s spare capacity at winter peak by about 1.6 GW, cutting the safety margin by about 50%. A more conservative view of the reliability of gas and coal power stations would have an effect similar in size.

If these numbers are correct, National Grid is being too optimistic in its Winter Outlook and the true position is that a typical winter will bring the UK far closer to power cuts than the company admits. A colder than average winter will make the UK’s position worse.

National Grid hasn’t responded to my written questions on Tuesday afternoon about the overstatement of nuclear availability and other issues.

 

 

Chris Goodall is an expert on energy, environment and climate change. He blogs at Carbon Commentary.

This article was originally published on Carbon Commentary.

 

 




386198

Scotland: time for a National Food Service? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Scotland’s brief period at the top of the international news agenda last month is over, for now. But the debate leading up to the independence referendum revealed a huge desire to make Scotland a better place.

Since the referendum, thousands of Scots have joined political parties for the first times in their lives, and the networks formed during the campaign are busy planning for the future. Conversations about change are continuing.

This Thursday and Friday in Glasgow, farmers from Scotland, India, Malawi and Trinidad and Tobago and campaigners from Canada and California will join nutritionists, climate scientists and experts on food poverty and food banks at the Nourish Scotland conference to discuss how to make food in Scotland better, fairer, healthier and more sustainable.

Only one in five Scots get their ‘five a day’

It’s a formidable challenge. More than a quarter of people in Scotland are obese. Only one in five adults eats five portions of fruit and vegetables per day, and Scots eat less fruit, vegetables and fish than their English neighbours.

There is a huge and growing inequality of diet between rich and poor, and the number of people using food banks has risen sharply in the past two years. Supermarkets dominate food retail, and highly processed food features prominently in many people’s diets.

Industrial farming methods are harming soil quality and biodiversity. Meanwhile 40% of Scotland’s food is imported, with serious implications for our carbon footprint and for our impact on the lives of others.

But the resources available are also impressive. Despite its high rate of imports, Scotland is a net exporter of food, producing far more than it eats. The seas around Scotland are rich in fish and seafood. There is plenty of arable land – around the same area per person as in India, which produces almost all of its own food.

To grow enough vegetables for everyone in Scotland to eat the recommended quantity would require an area of land smaller than that taken up by Scotland’s urban gardens.

A more holistic food policy

Change is required on many different levels if we are to make sure everyone in Scotland can eat well, as well as playing our part in ensuring everyone in the world can eat well, without trashing the planet.

Crucially, we need to look at our food system as a whole. For many years, government policy on food production in Scotland has been all about profit and export – and the food industry has been allowed to pursue ever greater profit regardless of the social, environmental and health impact in Scotland and beyond.

Nutrition has been seen largely as the responsibility of individuals, with government providing dietary advice but making little attempt to make healthy food more available and affordable.

The Scottish government has started to take small steps towards a more holistic food policy. For example, it has committed to extending the provision of free school meals, and improving the quality of food in schools and hospitals.

Food, and the land that produces it, as common goods?

Land – intimately bound up with food – is also receiving some long overdue attention.

Distribution of land in Scotland is more unequal than anywhere else in Europe, with fewer than one thousand people owning half of all land. Many landowners use their land for recreational hunting, shooting and fishing, rather than for food production.

The Scottish government has promised to make land distribution fairer, and a recent government study recommended limiting the size of landholdings and giving tenant farmers the right to buy the land they farm.

Legislation introduced in 2003 to help communities acquire land has already allowed 500,000 acres of land to come under community ownership, and a target of a million acres has been set for 2020.

A new strategy published for consultation this year, entitled ‘Becoming a Good Food Nation’, sets out aspirations for government policy to focus on health, particularly for children, and to support the production and sale of locally grown food, including through public sector food buying.

These are steps in the right direction, and the impetus towards a fairer, more sustainable food system is being driven forward by a diverse movement of small farmers and food businesses, community gardens, and networks established to increase access to affordable, healthy, local food.

However, the reality is that food remains overwhelmingly dominated by big, global businesses, which focus on profit, not on feeding people well or on preserving the planet for future generations.

There are, to be sure, positive initiatives by big business, for example to reduce salt content in foods and to use less packaging. But with food being primarily driven by profit, such voluntary programmes cannot bring about the huge changes we need.

If we started treating food as a common good, and farming and food production as services delivering good nutrition, good work, strong communities and healthy, biodiverse, resilient environments, we could create the potential for profound positive transformation.

Vegetables on prescription?

In Scotland, this could lead to farmers having a similar role as GPs (‘general practitioners’ – family doctors) do in the National Health Service: GPs are public servants at the same time as being small to medium enterprises. Vegetables could be available on prescription, and subsidised for low-income families.

It could mean people sharing responsibility for food production, as citizens not just consumers, with much more of our food coming from allotments, community gardens and farms in and around cities.

Government could adopt a zero-tolerance approach to hunger in Scotland, monitoring it, measuring it, and finding a better long-term solution than food banks.

Small-scale, organic, sustainable farming could be supported through public subsidies, and food policy focused on production for local people rather than for export. Trees could be planted on pasture, reducing the risks of soil erosion and flooding.

We could introduce rules to help ensure the food we do import is produced to high social and environmental standards.

These are just a few of the many, many things we could do to radically reshape food in Scotland for the better. Food sustains and nourishes not just individuals but also families, communities and our whole society. It’s too important to be left to the market.

 

 

The conference: Nourish Scotland takes place in Glasgow this week on 16th and 17th October 2014.

Pete Ritchie is the director of Nourish Scotland. Nourish aims to reshape the way food works in Scotland into a system that’s fair, healthy, affordable and sustainable.

Miriam Ross is a freelance writer and researcher.

 




385475

‘He is bonkers?’ Daniel Raven-Ellison on a Greater London National Park Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




From the heather-haired mountains of Scotland’s Cairngorms to the chalk cliffs and vineyards of the South Downs, Britain’s National Parks contain myriad natural terrain.

Plenty of variety, you might say, to satisfy most wilderness sensibilities.

But a campaign headed by a former geography teacher believes this trove of 15 special places, which preserve some of Britain’s most stunning countryside, is missing one important landscape altogether, and is doggedly determined to put it right.

London, it argues, should be the country’s first National Park City. London: with its 8.3 million inhabitants, and all the nitrogen dioxide they breathe.

It’s a hard sell. As David Butterworth, chief executive of Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, remarked on hearing campaign leader Daniel Raven-Ellison’s pitch for the city:

“He is bonkers?”

Breaking the mould

Butterworth has a point. Philosophically National Parks are the antithesis of London, created in 1949 as a salve for urbanites evermore confined by bricks, mortar and industrialisation.

And 65 years later, as the majority of visitors to National Parks – such as the Peak District and Snowdonia – hail from London and the South East the city clearly still feels like a place to escape.

But as Raven-Ellison and I ramble the seven miles from London’s Richmond Park to Wimbledon Common, under vast blue skies, the capital feels more kindred in spirit to the wilds of Exmoor than to its image as an oppressive, grimy dystopia.

And while the 34-year old explains the virtues of his campaign against a backdrop of rippling rivers, clumps of ancient woodland and sweeping fleets of deer, it sounds like nothing but logic.

It is the potential of ‘green lungs’ like these to remedy the ugliness of city life – plus a dose of Raven-Ellison’s ‘boldness’ – that finally won Butterworth over. Declaring his backing in an official letter of support, the Yorkshire Dales chief wrote:

“Better biodiversity and wildlife. Increased opportunities for tackling obesity. Increased opportunities to create more volunteers and develop green space for our children. Why shouldn’t London become a National Park City?”

Making friends

Many others agree. A handful of senior National Park staff are expected to publicly express their support for the campaign, which has been running since April.

While the London Wildlife Trust, John Muir Trust, Guide Association, Friends of London Parks and Black Environment Network are already behind the campaign. Over a thousand have also signed the online petition to Mayor Boris Johnson.

Raven-Ellison – who left mainstream teaching so he could “educate on a wider scale” – is adept at persuading others to think laterally.

Selected as a National Geographic Emerging Explorer in 2012 for his work in pushing the boundaries of discovery, adventure and problem solving, his “Guerrilla Geography“ excursions challenge children and adults to see place as more than a dot on a map.

Among his latest projects is a mission to walk the height of Everest by climbing London’s tallest buildings – proving that you needn’t travel far from home to find adventure.

Potential before beauty

The National Park City campaign – inspired by an expedition to all 15 National Parks with his 11-year old son – isn’t suggesting the city’s aesthetics are equal in worth to that of, say, the Brecon Beacons. Rather, it majors on vision and potential.

A Greater London National Park, Raven-Ellison believes, would capture public imagination, put the city’s environment to better use and nurture “softer, more empathetic” relationships between people and their surroundings.

“If this was 1949 it might be appropriate to value a landscape owing to its beauty. But today we should be thinking about what is ecologically valuable. This campaign is about making a city more liveable.”

Green space and water cover two thirds of the city, a wealthy natural environment that hosts richly textured plant, animal and insect communities. Fifteen hundred species of wild plant, 300 species of wild bird and 36 Sites of Special Scientific Interest are contained within its bounds, according to Natural England.

Yet, as Raven-Ellison outlines, “mental health conditions cost London £26bn a year. Obesity costs £900m. And one in five of the capital’s children is overweight.”

Greenery protects the public purse

National Park City status could help deflate those costs, he believes – though exactly how much he’s not had the means to quantify.

Branded in this way families would be more aware of and make better use of London’s natural environment. In turn, this would make them happier and healthier.

“The way people see cities is often through the lens of the media or politicians or a guide book. A National Park City changes expectations about the city and for the city.”

This status, argues Raven-Ellison, could tackle the fact that on a recent walk from Croydon’s King’s Wood (south London) to High Barnet (in the north) he managed to walk almost all of the route under tree cover, encountering grass snakes, woodpeckers, and a 2,000 year-old tree – but not one child.

“I didn’t even hear any. And it was a warm Friday during half term.”

The experience, he says, is indicative, citing a 2011 London Sustainable Development Commission report that said one in seven London children hadn’t visited a park with their parents in the previous year.

It could also help address the fact that in areas of London with sky-high rates of depression and suicide, green places happen to be poor quality, poorly managed or fenced off – a situation he came across on another exploration.

“If children aren’t using the woods, then what impact will that have? National Park City status would create strategies to allow London’s natural environment to evolve.”

Answering the naysayers

To the critics who say London already gets too much investment he says that all of our National Parks would benefit: the city’s special branding would alert tourists to their existence. He feels the same about London’s outer boroughs.

“We have the new wetlands in Walthamstow, or the Colne Valley and Sydenham Woods. But if you were new to London you wouldn’t necessarily visit these places because you’d be unaware of them. National Park City status could change that.”

And to those who say it has been tried before and failed? “That isn’t a good enough reason not to try again.”

Less well-know destinations would be promoted through a flagship educational centre in Temple, at the heart of London, funded by the Greater London Authority.

It would also house a small team of staff to “inform, inspire, and co-ordinate best practice” in biodiversity projects and recreational activities, and serve as HQ for park rangers across the 33 boroughs.

A volunteer service, open to anyone from the age of three, would undertake litter picking and wildlife recording tasks and allow its ‘helpers’ to take part in an award scheme, such as the one run by John Muir Trust.

“It wouldn’t have to cost a huge amount of money because there are already tens of thousands of people already delivering environmental services. We just need a great team to pull it all together, create new opportunities and unlock London’s potential.”

With or without Boris

Boris Johnson is thus far unmoved. In a letter to the campaign he explained that while the concept was “an engaging way of sparking debate” he doesn’t have the power to create a new class of urban park.

Technically that’s correct (Natural England which oversees National Park status) but Raven-Ellison believes he does have the means to get London’s special stamp: “Boris is wrong. A mayor does not need permission to do this because National Park Cities don’t yet exist.”

“Actually I thought the letter was encouraging”, says Raven-Ellison, who’s already trying to win support of candidates for the London 2016 mayoral election. “Those standing for mayor need to recognise that the city could be at the forefront of a green revolution. It is a no brainer.”

Current legislation precludes London’s acceptance to the National Park family, with designated parks being defined as “extensive tracts of country with natural beauty and opportunities for open-air recreation”.

Even cutting across the expansive commons of South West London that’s a hard mental link to make.

‘The needs are too pressing to ignore’

But Raven-Ellison, who’s running the campaign from his kitchen table, thinks new criteria should be drawn up that reflect the green potential of a place and promote its liveability – a need he feels is made ever more urgent as more of us move to urban landscapes by the day.

“The issues are too pressing to ignore. And this is a big vision we can all get behind. Natural England needs to come up with a framework for cities. And if they don’t we could just go ahead and declare London a National Park City ourselves anyway. We could just do it.”

Perhaps Raven-Ellison really is bonkers. But does it mean he’s wrong?

 

 

Lucy Anna Scott is a nature writer and co-creator of Lost in London magazine. See more of her work at lucyannascott.com.

Petition: Become a Founder of the Greater London National Park.

Learn more about plans for the Greater London National Park: join the ‘Reimagining London’ event on 24th February 2015 from 10.30am to 16.30. Tickets are on sale now.

Become a friend of the campaign.

 

 




385039

‘He is bonkers?’ Daniel Raven-Ellison on a Greater London National Park Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




From the heather-haired mountains of Scotland’s Cairngorms to the chalk cliffs and vineyards of the South Downs, Britain’s National Parks contain myriad natural terrain.

Plenty of variety, you might say, to satisfy most wilderness sensibilities.

But a campaign headed by a former geography teacher believes this trove of 15 special places, which preserve some of Britain’s most stunning countryside, is missing one important landscape altogether, and is doggedly determined to put it right.

London, it argues, should be the country’s first National Park City. London: with its 8.3 million inhabitants, and all the nitrogen dioxide they breathe.

It’s a hard sell. As David Butterworth, chief executive of Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, remarked on hearing campaign leader Daniel Raven-Ellison’s pitch for the city:

“He is bonkers?”

Breaking the mould

Butterworth has a point. Philosophically National Parks are the antithesis of London, created in 1949 as a salve for urbanites evermore confined by bricks, mortar and industrialisation.

And 65 years later, as the majority of visitors to National Parks – such as the Peak District and Snowdonia – hail from London and the South East the city clearly still feels like a place to escape.

But as Raven-Ellison and I ramble the seven miles from London’s Richmond Park to Wimbledon Common, under vast blue skies, the capital feels more kindred in spirit to the wilds of Exmoor than to its image as an oppressive, grimy dystopia.

And while the 34-year old explains the virtues of his campaign against a backdrop of rippling rivers, clumps of ancient woodland and sweeping fleets of deer, it sounds like nothing but logic.

It is the potential of ‘green lungs’ like these to remedy the ugliness of city life – plus a dose of Raven-Ellison’s ‘boldness’ – that finally won Butterworth over. Declaring his backing in an official letter of support, the Yorkshire Dales chief wrote:

“Better biodiversity and wildlife. Increased opportunities for tackling obesity. Increased opportunities to create more volunteers and develop green space for our children. Why shouldn’t London become a National Park City?”

Making friends

Many others agree. A handful of senior National Park staff are expected to publicly express their support for the campaign, which has been running since April.

While the London Wildlife Trust, John Muir Trust, Guide Association, Friends of London Parks and Black Environment Network are already behind the campaign. Over a thousand have also signed the online petition to Mayor Boris Johnson.

Raven-Ellison – who left mainstream teaching so he could “educate on a wider scale” – is adept at persuading others to think laterally.

Selected as a National Geographic Emerging Explorer in 2012 for his work in pushing the boundaries of discovery, adventure and problem solving, his “Guerrilla Geography“ excursions challenge children and adults to see place as more than a dot on a map.

Among his latest projects is a mission to walk the height of Everest by climbing London’s tallest buildings – proving that you needn’t travel far from home to find adventure.

Potential before beauty

The National Park City campaign – inspired by an expedition to all 15 National Parks with his 11-year old son – isn’t suggesting the city’s aesthetics are equal in worth to that of, say, the Brecon Beacons. Rather, it majors on vision and potential.

A Greater London National Park, Raven-Ellison believes, would capture public imagination, put the city’s environment to better use and nurture “softer, more empathetic” relationships between people and their surroundings.

“If this was 1949 it might be appropriate to value a landscape owing to its beauty. But today we should be thinking about what is ecologically valuable. This campaign is about making a city more liveable.”

Green space and water cover two thirds of the city, a wealthy natural environment that hosts richly textured plant, animal and insect communities. Fifteen hundred species of wild plant, 300 species of wild bird and 36 Sites of Special Scientific Interest are contained within its bounds, according to Natural England.

Yet, as Raven-Ellison outlines, “mental health conditions cost London £26bn a year. Obesity costs £900m. And one in five of the capital’s children is overweight.”

Greenery protects the public purse

National Park City status could help deflate those costs, he believes – though exactly how much he’s not had the means to quantify.

Branded in this way families would be more aware of and make better use of London’s natural environment. In turn, this would make them happier and healthier.

“The way people see cities is often through the lens of the media or politicians or a guide book. A National Park City changes expectations about the city and for the city.”

This status, argues Raven-Ellison, could tackle the fact that on a recent walk from Croydon’s King’s Wood (south London) to High Barnet (in the north) he managed to walk almost all of the route under tree cover, encountering grass snakes, woodpeckers, and a 2,000 year-old tree – but not one child.

“I didn’t even hear any. And it was a warm Friday during half term.”

The experience, he says, is indicative, citing a 2011 London Sustainable Development Commission report that said one in seven London children hadn’t visited a park with their parents in the previous year.

It could also help address the fact that in areas of London with sky-high rates of depression and suicide, green places happen to be poor quality, poorly managed or fenced off – a situation he came across on another exploration.

“If children aren’t using the woods, then what impact will that have? National Park City status would create strategies to allow London’s natural environment to evolve.”

Answering the naysayers

To the critics who say London already gets too much investment he says that all of our National Parks would benefit: the city’s special branding would alert tourists to their existence. He feels the same about London’s outer boroughs.

“We have the new wetlands in Walthamstow, or the Colne Valley and Sydenham Woods. But if you were new to London you wouldn’t necessarily visit these places because you’d be unaware of them. National Park City status could change that.”

And to those who say it has been tried before and failed? “That isn’t a good enough reason not to try again.”

Less well-know destinations would be promoted through a flagship educational centre in Temple, at the heart of London, funded by the Greater London Authority.

It would also house a small team of staff to “inform, inspire, and co-ordinate best practice” in biodiversity projects and recreational activities, and serve as HQ for park rangers across the 33 boroughs.

A volunteer service, open to anyone from the age of three, would undertake litter picking and wildlife recording tasks and allow its ‘helpers’ to take part in an award scheme, such as the one run by John Muir Trust.

“It wouldn’t have to cost a huge amount of money because there are already tens of thousands of people already delivering environmental services. We just need a great team to pull it all together, create new opportunities and unlock London’s potential.”

With or without Boris

Boris Johnson is thus far unmoved. In a letter to the campaign he explained that while the concept was “an engaging way of sparking debate” he doesn’t have the power to create a new class of urban park.

Technically that’s correct (Natural England which oversees National Park status) but Raven-Ellison believes he does have the means to get London’s special stamp: “Boris is wrong. A mayor does not need permission to do this because National Park Cities don’t yet exist.”

“Actually I thought the letter was encouraging”, says Raven-Ellison, who’s already trying to win support of candidates for the London 2016 mayoral election. “Those standing for mayor need to recognise that the city could be at the forefront of a green revolution. It is a no brainer.”

Current legislation precludes London’s acceptance to the National Park family, with designated parks being defined as “extensive tracts of country with natural beauty and opportunities for open-air recreation”.

Even cutting across the expansive commons of South West London that’s a hard mental link to make.

‘The needs are too pressing to ignore’

But Raven-Ellison, who’s running the campaign from his kitchen table, thinks new criteria should be drawn up that reflect the green potential of a place and promote its liveability – a need he feels is made ever more urgent as more of us move to urban landscapes by the day.

“The issues are too pressing to ignore. And this is a big vision we can all get behind. Natural England needs to come up with a framework for cities. And if they don’t we could just go ahead and declare London a National Park City ourselves anyway. We could just do it.”

Perhaps Raven-Ellison really is bonkers. But does it mean he’s wrong?

 

 

Lucy Anna Scott is a nature writer and co-creator of Lost in London magazine. See more of her work at lucyannascott.com.

Petition: Become a Founder of the Greater London National Park.

Learn more about plans for the Greater London National Park: join the ‘Reimagining London’ event on 24th February 2015 from 10.30am to 16.30. Tickets are on sale now.

Become a friend of the campaign.

 

 




385039

‘He is bonkers?’ Daniel Raven-Ellison on a Greater London National Park Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




From the heather-haired mountains of Scotland’s Cairngorms to the chalk cliffs and vineyards of the South Downs, Britain’s National Parks contain myriad natural terrain.

Plenty of variety, you might say, to satisfy most wilderness sensibilities.

But a campaign headed by a former geography teacher believes this trove of 15 special places, which preserve some of Britain’s most stunning countryside, is missing one important landscape altogether, and is doggedly determined to put it right.

London, it argues, should be the country’s first National Park City. London: with its 8.3 million inhabitants, and all the nitrogen dioxide they breathe.

It’s a hard sell. As David Butterworth, chief executive of Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, remarked on hearing campaign leader Daniel Raven-Ellison’s pitch for the city:

“He is bonkers?”

Breaking the mould

Butterworth has a point. Philosophically National Parks are the antithesis of London, created in 1949 as a salve for urbanites evermore confined by bricks, mortar and industrialisation.

And 65 years later, as the majority of visitors to National Parks – such as the Peak District and Snowdonia – hail from London and the South East the city clearly still feels like a place to escape.

But as Raven-Ellison and I ramble the seven miles from London’s Richmond Park to Wimbledon Common, under vast blue skies, the capital feels more kindred in spirit to the wilds of Exmoor than to its image as an oppressive, grimy dystopia.

And while the 34-year old explains the virtues of his campaign against a backdrop of rippling rivers, clumps of ancient woodland and sweeping fleets of deer, it sounds like nothing but logic.

It is the potential of ‘green lungs’ like these to remedy the ugliness of city life – plus a dose of Raven-Ellison’s ‘boldness’ – that finally won Butterworth over. Declaring his backing in an official letter of support, the Yorkshire Dales chief wrote:

“Better biodiversity and wildlife. Increased opportunities for tackling obesity. Increased opportunities to create more volunteers and develop green space for our children. Why shouldn’t London become a National Park City?”

Making friends

Many others agree. A handful of senior National Park staff are expected to publicly express their support for the campaign, which has been running since April.

While the London Wildlife Trust, John Muir Trust, Guide Association, Friends of London Parks and Black Environment Network are already behind the campaign. Over a thousand have also signed the online petition to Mayor Boris Johnson.

Raven-Ellison – who left mainstream teaching so he could “educate on a wider scale” – is adept at persuading others to think laterally.

Selected as a National Geographic Emerging Explorer in 2012 for his work in pushing the boundaries of discovery, adventure and problem solving, his “Guerrilla Geography“ excursions challenge children and adults to see place as more than a dot on a map.

Among his latest projects is a mission to walk the height of Everest by climbing London’s tallest buildings – proving that you needn’t travel far from home to find adventure.

Potential before beauty

The National Park City campaign – inspired by an expedition to all 15 National Parks with his 11-year old son – isn’t suggesting the city’s aesthetics are equal in worth to that of, say, the Brecon Beacons. Rather, it majors on vision and potential.

A Greater London National Park, Raven-Ellison believes, would capture public imagination, put the city’s environment to better use and nurture “softer, more empathetic” relationships between people and their surroundings.

“If this was 1949 it might be appropriate to value a landscape owing to its beauty. But today we should be thinking about what is ecologically valuable. This campaign is about making a city more liveable.”

Green space and water cover two thirds of the city, a wealthy natural environment that hosts richly textured plant, animal and insect communities. Fifteen hundred species of wild plant, 300 species of wild bird and 36 Sites of Special Scientific Interest are contained within its bounds, according to Natural England.

Yet, as Raven-Ellison outlines, “mental health conditions cost London £26bn a year. Obesity costs £900m. And one in five of the capital’s children is overweight.”

Greenery protects the public purse

National Park City status could help deflate those costs, he believes – though exactly how much he’s not had the means to quantify.

Branded in this way families would be more aware of and make better use of London’s natural environment. In turn, this would make them happier and healthier.

“The way people see cities is often through the lens of the media or politicians or a guide book. A National Park City changes expectations about the city and for the city.”

This status, argues Raven-Ellison, could tackle the fact that on a recent walk from Croydon’s King’s Wood (south London) to High Barnet (in the north) he managed to walk almost all of the route under tree cover, encountering grass snakes, woodpeckers, and a 2,000 year-old tree – but not one child.

“I didn’t even hear any. And it was a warm Friday during half term.”

The experience, he says, is indicative, citing a 2011 London Sustainable Development Commission report that said one in seven London children hadn’t visited a park with their parents in the previous year.

It could also help address the fact that in areas of London with sky-high rates of depression and suicide, green places happen to be poor quality, poorly managed or fenced off – a situation he came across on another exploration.

“If children aren’t using the woods, then what impact will that have? National Park City status would create strategies to allow London’s natural environment to evolve.”

Answering the naysayers

To the critics who say London already gets too much investment he says that all of our National Parks would benefit: the city’s special branding would alert tourists to their existence. He feels the same about London’s outer boroughs.

“We have the new wetlands in Walthamstow, or the Colne Valley and Sydenham Woods. But if you were new to London you wouldn’t necessarily visit these places because you’d be unaware of them. National Park City status could change that.”

And to those who say it has been tried before and failed? “That isn’t a good enough reason not to try again.”

Less well-know destinations would be promoted through a flagship educational centre in Temple, at the heart of London, funded by the Greater London Authority.

It would also house a small team of staff to “inform, inspire, and co-ordinate best practice” in biodiversity projects and recreational activities, and serve as HQ for park rangers across the 33 boroughs.

A volunteer service, open to anyone from the age of three, would undertake litter picking and wildlife recording tasks and allow its ‘helpers’ to take part in an award scheme, such as the one run by John Muir Trust.

“It wouldn’t have to cost a huge amount of money because there are already tens of thousands of people already delivering environmental services. We just need a great team to pull it all together, create new opportunities and unlock London’s potential.”

With or without Boris

Boris Johnson is thus far unmoved. In a letter to the campaign he explained that while the concept was “an engaging way of sparking debate” he doesn’t have the power to create a new class of urban park.

Technically that’s correct (Natural England which oversees National Park status) but Raven-Ellison believes he does have the means to get London’s special stamp: “Boris is wrong. A mayor does not need permission to do this because National Park Cities don’t yet exist.”

“Actually I thought the letter was encouraging”, says Raven-Ellison, who’s already trying to win support of candidates for the London 2016 mayoral election. “Those standing for mayor need to recognise that the city could be at the forefront of a green revolution. It is a no brainer.”

Current legislation precludes London’s acceptance to the National Park family, with designated parks being defined as “extensive tracts of country with natural beauty and opportunities for open-air recreation”.

Even cutting across the expansive commons of South West London that’s a hard mental link to make.

‘The needs are too pressing to ignore’

But Raven-Ellison, who’s running the campaign from his kitchen table, thinks new criteria should be drawn up that reflect the green potential of a place and promote its liveability – a need he feels is made ever more urgent as more of us move to urban landscapes by the day.

“The issues are too pressing to ignore. And this is a big vision we can all get behind. Natural England needs to come up with a framework for cities. And if they don’t we could just go ahead and declare London a National Park City ourselves anyway. We could just do it.”

Perhaps Raven-Ellison really is bonkers. But does it mean he’s wrong?

 

 

Lucy Anna Scott is a nature writer and co-creator of Lost in London magazine. See more of her work at lucyannascott.com.

Petition: Become a Founder of the Greater London National Park.

Learn more about plans for the Greater London National Park: join the ‘Reimagining London’ event on 24th February 2015 from 10.30am to 16.30. Tickets are on sale now.

Become a friend of the campaign.

 

 




385039

‘He is bonkers?’ Daniel Raven-Ellison on a Greater London National Park Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




From the heather-haired mountains of Scotland’s Cairngorms to the chalk cliffs and vineyards of the South Downs, Britain’s National Parks contain myriad natural terrain.

Plenty of variety, you might say, to satisfy most wilderness sensibilities.

But a campaign headed by a former geography teacher believes this trove of 15 special places, which preserve some of Britain’s most stunning countryside, is missing one important landscape altogether, and is doggedly determined to put it right.

London, it argues, should be the country’s first National Park City. London: with its 8.3 million inhabitants, and all the nitrogen dioxide they breathe.

It’s a hard sell. As David Butterworth, chief executive of Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, remarked on hearing campaign leader Daniel Raven-Ellison’s pitch for the city:

“He is bonkers?”

Breaking the mould

Butterworth has a point. Philosophically National Parks are the antithesis of London, created in 1949 as a salve for urbanites evermore confined by bricks, mortar and industrialisation.

And 65 years later, as the majority of visitors to National Parks – such as the Peak District and Snowdonia – hail from London and the South East the city clearly still feels like a place to escape.

But as Raven-Ellison and I ramble the seven miles from London’s Richmond Park to Wimbledon Common, under vast blue skies, the capital feels more kindred in spirit to the wilds of Exmoor than to its image as an oppressive, grimy dystopia.

And while the 34-year old explains the virtues of his campaign against a backdrop of rippling rivers, clumps of ancient woodland and sweeping fleets of deer, it sounds like nothing but logic.

It is the potential of ‘green lungs’ like these to remedy the ugliness of city life – plus a dose of Raven-Ellison’s ‘boldness’ – that finally won Butterworth over. Declaring his backing in an official letter of support, the Yorkshire Dales chief wrote:

“Better biodiversity and wildlife. Increased opportunities for tackling obesity. Increased opportunities to create more volunteers and develop green space for our children. Why shouldn’t London become a National Park City?”

Making friends

Many others agree. A handful of senior National Park staff are expected to publicly express their support for the campaign, which has been running since April.

While the London Wildlife Trust, John Muir Trust, Guide Association, Friends of London Parks and Black Environment Network are already behind the campaign. Over a thousand have also signed the online petition to Mayor Boris Johnson.

Raven-Ellison – who left mainstream teaching so he could “educate on a wider scale” – is adept at persuading others to think laterally.

Selected as a National Geographic Emerging Explorer in 2012 for his work in pushing the boundaries of discovery, adventure and problem solving, his “Guerrilla Geography“ excursions challenge children and adults to see place as more than a dot on a map.

Among his latest projects is a mission to walk the height of Everest by climbing London’s tallest buildings – proving that you needn’t travel far from home to find adventure.

Potential before beauty

The National Park City campaign – inspired by an expedition to all 15 National Parks with his 11-year old son – isn’t suggesting the city’s aesthetics are equal in worth to that of, say, the Brecon Beacons. Rather, it majors on vision and potential.

A Greater London National Park, Raven-Ellison believes, would capture public imagination, put the city’s environment to better use and nurture “softer, more empathetic” relationships between people and their surroundings.

“If this was 1949 it might be appropriate to value a landscape owing to its beauty. But today we should be thinking about what is ecologically valuable. This campaign is about making a city more liveable.”

Green space and water cover two thirds of the city, a wealthy natural environment that hosts richly textured plant, animal and insect communities. Fifteen hundred species of wild plant, 300 species of wild bird and 36 Sites of Special Scientific Interest are contained within its bounds, according to Natural England.

Yet, as Raven-Ellison outlines, “mental health conditions cost London £26bn a year. Obesity costs £900m. And one in five of the capital’s children is overweight.”

Greenery protects the public purse

National Park City status could help deflate those costs, he believes – though exactly how much he’s not had the means to quantify.

Branded in this way families would be more aware of and make better use of London’s natural environment. In turn, this would make them happier and healthier.

“The way people see cities is often through the lens of the media or politicians or a guide book. A National Park City changes expectations about the city and for the city.”

This status, argues Raven-Ellison, could tackle the fact that on a recent walk from Croydon’s King’s Wood (south London) to High Barnet (in the north) he managed to walk almost all of the route under tree cover, encountering grass snakes, woodpeckers, and a 2,000 year-old tree – but not one child.

“I didn’t even hear any. And it was a warm Friday during half term.”

The experience, he says, is indicative, citing a 2011 London Sustainable Development Commission report that said one in seven London children hadn’t visited a park with their parents in the previous year.

It could also help address the fact that in areas of London with sky-high rates of depression and suicide, green places happen to be poor quality, poorly managed or fenced off – a situation he came across on another exploration.

“If children aren’t using the woods, then what impact will that have? National Park City status would create strategies to allow London’s natural environment to evolve.”

Answering the naysayers

To the critics who say London already gets too much investment he says that all of our National Parks would benefit: the city’s special branding would alert tourists to their existence. He feels the same about London’s outer boroughs.

“We have the new wetlands in Walthamstow, or the Colne Valley and Sydenham Woods. But if you were new to London you wouldn’t necessarily visit these places because you’d be unaware of them. National Park City status could change that.”

And to those who say it has been tried before and failed? “That isn’t a good enough reason not to try again.”

Less well-know destinations would be promoted through a flagship educational centre in Temple, at the heart of London, funded by the Greater London Authority.

It would also house a small team of staff to “inform, inspire, and co-ordinate best practice” in biodiversity projects and recreational activities, and serve as HQ for park rangers across the 33 boroughs.

A volunteer service, open to anyone from the age of three, would undertake litter picking and wildlife recording tasks and allow its ‘helpers’ to take part in an award scheme, such as the one run by John Muir Trust.

“It wouldn’t have to cost a huge amount of money because there are already tens of thousands of people already delivering environmental services. We just need a great team to pull it all together, create new opportunities and unlock London’s potential.”

With or without Boris

Boris Johnson is thus far unmoved. In a letter to the campaign he explained that while the concept was “an engaging way of sparking debate” he doesn’t have the power to create a new class of urban park.

Technically that’s correct (Natural England which oversees National Park status) but Raven-Ellison believes he does have the means to get London’s special stamp: “Boris is wrong. A mayor does not need permission to do this because National Park Cities don’t yet exist.”

“Actually I thought the letter was encouraging”, says Raven-Ellison, who’s already trying to win support of candidates for the London 2016 mayoral election. “Those standing for mayor need to recognise that the city could be at the forefront of a green revolution. It is a no brainer.”

Current legislation precludes London’s acceptance to the National Park family, with designated parks being defined as “extensive tracts of country with natural beauty and opportunities for open-air recreation”.

Even cutting across the expansive commons of South West London that’s a hard mental link to make.

‘The needs are too pressing to ignore’

But Raven-Ellison, who’s running the campaign from his kitchen table, thinks new criteria should be drawn up that reflect the green potential of a place and promote its liveability – a need he feels is made ever more urgent as more of us move to urban landscapes by the day.

“The issues are too pressing to ignore. And this is a big vision we can all get behind. Natural England needs to come up with a framework for cities. And if they don’t we could just go ahead and declare London a National Park City ourselves anyway. We could just do it.”

Perhaps Raven-Ellison really is bonkers. But does it mean he’s wrong?

 

 

Lucy Anna Scott is a nature writer and co-creator of Lost in London magazine. See more of her work at lucyannascott.com.

Petition: Become a Founder of the Greater London National Park.

Learn more about plans for the Greater London National Park: join the ‘Reimagining London’ event on 24th February 2015 from 10.30am to 16.30. Tickets are on sale now.

Become a friend of the campaign.

 

 




385039

‘He is bonkers?’ Daniel Raven-Ellison on a Greater London National Park Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




From the heather-haired mountains of Scotland’s Cairngorms to the chalk cliffs and vineyards of the South Downs, Britain’s National Parks contain myriad natural terrain.

Plenty of variety, you might say, to satisfy most wilderness sensibilities.

But a campaign headed by a former geography teacher believes this trove of 15 special places, which preserve some of Britain’s most stunning countryside, is missing one important landscape altogether, and is doggedly determined to put it right.

London, it argues, should be the country’s first National Park City. London: with its 8.3 million inhabitants, and all the nitrogen dioxide they breathe.

It’s a hard sell. As David Butterworth, chief executive of Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, remarked on hearing campaign leader Daniel Raven-Ellison’s pitch for the city:

“He is bonkers?”

Breaking the mould

Butterworth has a point. Philosophically National Parks are the antithesis of London, created in 1949 as a salve for urbanites evermore confined by bricks, mortar and industrialisation.

And 65 years later, as the majority of visitors to National Parks – such as the Peak District and Snowdonia – hail from London and the South East the city clearly still feels like a place to escape.

But as Raven-Ellison and I ramble the seven miles from London’s Richmond Park to Wimbledon Common, under vast blue skies, the capital feels more kindred in spirit to the wilds of Exmoor than to its image as an oppressive, grimy dystopia.

And while the 34-year old explains the virtues of his campaign against a backdrop of rippling rivers, clumps of ancient woodland and sweeping fleets of deer, it sounds like nothing but logic.

It is the potential of ‘green lungs’ like these to remedy the ugliness of city life – plus a dose of Raven-Ellison’s ‘boldness’ – that finally won Butterworth over. Declaring his backing in an official letter of support, the Yorkshire Dales chief wrote:

“Better biodiversity and wildlife. Increased opportunities for tackling obesity. Increased opportunities to create more volunteers and develop green space for our children. Why shouldn’t London become a National Park City?”

Making friends

Many others agree. A handful of senior National Park staff are expected to publicly express their support for the campaign, which has been running since April.

While the London Wildlife Trust, John Muir Trust, Guide Association, Friends of London Parks and Black Environment Network are already behind the campaign. Over a thousand have also signed the online petition to Mayor Boris Johnson.

Raven-Ellison – who left mainstream teaching so he could “educate on a wider scale” – is adept at persuading others to think laterally.

Selected as a National Geographic Emerging Explorer in 2012 for his work in pushing the boundaries of discovery, adventure and problem solving, his “Guerrilla Geography“ excursions challenge children and adults to see place as more than a dot on a map.

Among his latest projects is a mission to walk the height of Everest by climbing London’s tallest buildings – proving that you needn’t travel far from home to find adventure.

Potential before beauty

The National Park City campaign – inspired by an expedition to all 15 National Parks with his 11-year old son – isn’t suggesting the city’s aesthetics are equal in worth to that of, say, the Brecon Beacons. Rather, it majors on vision and potential.

A Greater London National Park, Raven-Ellison believes, would capture public imagination, put the city’s environment to better use and nurture “softer, more empathetic” relationships between people and their surroundings.

“If this was 1949 it might be appropriate to value a landscape owing to its beauty. But today we should be thinking about what is ecologically valuable. This campaign is about making a city more liveable.”

Green space and water cover two thirds of the city, a wealthy natural environment that hosts richly textured plant, animal and insect communities. Fifteen hundred species of wild plant, 300 species of wild bird and 36 Sites of Special Scientific Interest are contained within its bounds, according to Natural England.

Yet, as Raven-Ellison outlines, “mental health conditions cost London £26bn a year. Obesity costs £900m. And one in five of the capital’s children is overweight.”

Greenery protects the public purse

National Park City status could help deflate those costs, he believes – though exactly how much he’s not had the means to quantify.

Branded in this way families would be more aware of and make better use of London’s natural environment. In turn, this would make them happier and healthier.

“The way people see cities is often through the lens of the media or politicians or a guide book. A National Park City changes expectations about the city and for the city.”

This status, argues Raven-Ellison, could tackle the fact that on a recent walk from Croydon’s King’s Wood (south London) to High Barnet (in the north) he managed to walk almost all of the route under tree cover, encountering grass snakes, woodpeckers, and a 2,000 year-old tree – but not one child.

“I didn’t even hear any. And it was a warm Friday during half term.”

The experience, he says, is indicative, citing a 2011 London Sustainable Development Commission report that said one in seven London children hadn’t visited a park with their parents in the previous year.

It could also help address the fact that in areas of London with sky-high rates of depression and suicide, green places happen to be poor quality, poorly managed or fenced off – a situation he came across on another exploration.

“If children aren’t using the woods, then what impact will that have? National Park City status would create strategies to allow London’s natural environment to evolve.”

Answering the naysayers

To the critics who say London already gets too much investment he says that all of our National Parks would benefit: the city’s special branding would alert tourists to their existence. He feels the same about London’s outer boroughs.

“We have the new wetlands in Walthamstow, or the Colne Valley and Sydenham Woods. But if you were new to London you wouldn’t necessarily visit these places because you’d be unaware of them. National Park City status could change that.”

And to those who say it has been tried before and failed? “That isn’t a good enough reason not to try again.”

Less well-know destinations would be promoted through a flagship educational centre in Temple, at the heart of London, funded by the Greater London Authority.

It would also house a small team of staff to “inform, inspire, and co-ordinate best practice” in biodiversity projects and recreational activities, and serve as HQ for park rangers across the 33 boroughs.

A volunteer service, open to anyone from the age of three, would undertake litter picking and wildlife recording tasks and allow its ‘helpers’ to take part in an award scheme, such as the one run by John Muir Trust.

“It wouldn’t have to cost a huge amount of money because there are already tens of thousands of people already delivering environmental services. We just need a great team to pull it all together, create new opportunities and unlock London’s potential.”

With or without Boris

Boris Johnson is thus far unmoved. In a letter to the campaign he explained that while the concept was “an engaging way of sparking debate” he doesn’t have the power to create a new class of urban park.

Technically that’s correct (Natural England which oversees National Park status) but Raven-Ellison believes he does have the means to get London’s special stamp: “Boris is wrong. A mayor does not need permission to do this because National Park Cities don’t yet exist.”

“Actually I thought the letter was encouraging”, says Raven-Ellison, who’s already trying to win support of candidates for the London 2016 mayoral election. “Those standing for mayor need to recognise that the city could be at the forefront of a green revolution. It is a no brainer.”

Current legislation precludes London’s acceptance to the National Park family, with designated parks being defined as “extensive tracts of country with natural beauty and opportunities for open-air recreation”.

Even cutting across the expansive commons of South West London that’s a hard mental link to make.

‘The needs are too pressing to ignore’

But Raven-Ellison, who’s running the campaign from his kitchen table, thinks new criteria should be drawn up that reflect the green potential of a place and promote its liveability – a need he feels is made ever more urgent as more of us move to urban landscapes by the day.

“The issues are too pressing to ignore. And this is a big vision we can all get behind. Natural England needs to come up with a framework for cities. And if they don’t we could just go ahead and declare London a National Park City ourselves anyway. We could just do it.”

Perhaps Raven-Ellison really is bonkers. But does it mean he’s wrong?

 

 

Lucy Anna Scott is a nature writer and co-creator of Lost in London magazine. See more of her work at lucyannascott.com.

Petition: Become a Founder of the Greater London National Park.

Learn more about plans for the Greater London National Park: join the ‘Reimagining London’ event on 24th February 2015 from 10.30am to 16.30. Tickets are on sale now.

Become a friend of the campaign.

 

 




385039

Congo: Africa’s oldest National Park under violent attack by UK oil company Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a world heritage site and contains some 220 critically endangered mountain gorillas – a quarter of the total global population.

Yet the park is grievously threatened by the ambitions of London-listed company Soco International PLC – one of the UK’s 200 largest companies – to drill oil within its boundaries.

Soco and its contractors have made illicit payments, paid off armed rebels, and kindled fear and violence in eastern Congo as they sought access to Africa’s oldest national park for oil exploration.

Through its choice of powerful local collaborators Soco has created an atmosphere of intimidation around its base in Nyakakoma, making it harder for anyone to speak out.

The explosive allegations come in a new report by Global Witness: ‘Drillers in the mist‘: How secret payments and a climate of violence helped UK firm open African national park to oil, based on an undercover investigation by UK film-makers.

Park rangers arrested, stabbed, imprisoned, shot

Activists and park rangers in Nyakakoma have been arrested, imprisoned, and in some cases beaten or stabbed, by soldiers and intelligence agents after criticising or obstructing Soco’s operations. On one occasion, a senior ranger was beaten and imprisoned.

But the dangers run by rangers seeking to protect the park were starkly illustrated by the attempted assassination of Emmanuel de Merode, the Belgian manager of Virunga’s 300 rangers, in April 2014 by unknown gunmen.

The same day as he submitted a critical report on Soco’s activities to a public prosecutor, de Merode was shot twice, in the stomach and in the chest.

Although a number of groups had reason to remove de Merode, the connection with Soco was made more likely by a series of threatening text messages in which activists were told: “Don’t think that if we missed your director [de Merode] that we will also miss you.”

Soco, while denying direct involvement in de Merode’s attempted murder, admits that the threats may have been issued by its supporters.

Soco’s ‘accomplices’ in bribery

One key figure in Soco’s campaigns of bribery and thuggish intimidation is Major Burimbi Feruzi. He is recorded as offering $3,000 – equivalent to a year and a half salary – to a ranger in exchange for his becoming an “accomplice”.

He is also strongly implicated in the deployment of soliders to intimidate opponent’s of Soco. Conglese NGOs have singled out Feruzi, saying: “he has been used by Soco International; his military status has been utilised to silence anyone who has questions about the true impact of the oil project.”

Strong evidence suggests that Soco also employed the services of a Congolese MP – Célestin Vunabandi – who even admits on his linkedIn profile that the company took him on as a consultant. He spoke in favour of Soco at public meetings, in the media, and in meetings with NGOs and regional politicians.

Three sources from North Kivu claimed that Vunabandi was the first person to hold public meetings about plans for oil exploration in Virunga, and that he did not reveal that he was a consultant for Soco.

He is also believed to have facilitated a phoney demonstration in the town of Vitshumbi in support of Soco’s activities. This ‘demonstration’ was attended by Soco agents giving 40 local organisations envelopes full of cash.

Soco’s field Operations Supervisor, Julien Lechenault, acknowledged that Soco had paid for the demonstration.

And when bribery doesn’t work …

When bribery proves insufficent, Soco’s opponents – not just park rangers but also activists, journalists and even fishermen – have been arrested, beaten and received death threats.

A member of a fishermen’s committee in Nyakakoma was arrested on 15 July 2013 by soldiers said to be acting on orders from Major Feruzi – shortly before he was due to speak about the impact of oil production in Western Congo.

In September 2013 an activist with a local human rights group was arrested by local navy officials for allegedly taking photographs of Soco’s camp in Nyakakoma. The activist was arrested again in February 2014 after having asked a question deemed to be critical of Soco at a public meeting.

In another incident, Gaïus Kowene, a freelance journalist for Deutsche Welle, Germany’s international broadcaster, was attacked hours after he broadcast a critical report on Soco in Virunga in October 2013.

Six armed men “dressed in military uniforms” beat him at his home in Goma and stole his laptop before fleeing, according to Congolese NGO Journaliste en Danger.

Soco: ‘We’ll be back!’

Soco carried out six weeks of seismic testing inside the park from April 2014. A deal with WWF, which had initially complained to the OECD about the company’s activities, allowed Soco to complete the tests and give the Congolese government data on Virunga’s oil potential.

Soco has publicly registered its desire that the Congo and UNESCO “come to some kind of accommodation, as has been demonstrated in many other places where they have accommodated things in world heritage sites by redrawing boundaries and by agreeing to certain activities being conducted in certain ways.”

In an agreement announced jointly with the WWF, Soco pledged that after completing seismic testing, it would not “undertake or commission any exploratory or other drilling within Virunga National Park unless UNESCO and the DRC government agree that such activities are not incompatible with its World Heritage status.”

However, it is clear that Soco believes its operations in the park will continue: Soco’s Congo country chief José Sangwa wrote that “disengagement from oil exploration activities in Virunga National Park … is inaccurate.” Soco will process its oil exploration data by mid-2015.

Financing rebels linkled to the Rwandan genocide

In one recorded exchange, Soco International official Julien Lechenault and a British subcontractor admit that the company cooperated with and paid money to Congolese rebels who control much of Soco’s Block 5.

Specific reference is made to the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, a group linked to the 1994 Rwanda massacre.

The murderous activities of these heavily rebel groups within the park and around its boundaries present one of the greatest long term threats to the park and its wildlife. Over 140 Virunga park rangers have been murdered since 1996, most recently in January 2014.

The danger of violence is also highly damaging to tourism in Virunga. A study by WWF estimates that the park could be the foundation of a $400 million per year tourism industry, bringing huge benefits to the impoverished region. But so long as potential visitors fear attack by armed rebels they will stay away.

Soco’s willingness to accommodate, even finance armed rebel groups linked to the Rwandan genocide therefore bodes ill for the future – not just for Virunga but for the entire region, as it breeds continuing violence, poverty and political instablity.

The outcome of the clash over Virunga will now set the tone for how Congo’s fledgling oil industry develops. Huge areas of forest in Congo’s central basin have already been subdivided into oil blocks.

Soco is eyeing these potential riches and says it has applied for a “large interior block” in Congo. “The whole central basin is virgin territory”, Soco’s Africa head Serge Lescaut has declared. “We must explore it.”

 

 

Gregory McGann is a writer, journalist, researcher and scholar based at Exeter College, Oxford.

The report: ‘Drillers in the mist‘: How secret payments and a climate of violence helped UK firm open African national park to oil.

 




376732