Urban wildlife
Our urban landscape offers great opportunities to wildlife of all kinds, so why not create the world’s first National Park City, asks Daniel Raven-Ellison.
London could become the first National Park City
Last year I walked 1,500km across all of the UK’s 15 national parks and 69 cities. Crossing over moorlands, between mountains, through wild abandoned industrial areas and hundreds of miles of suburbia, the journey gave me a chance to explore a question I had posed three years earlier. What would happen if we made London a National Park City?
After all, the Environment Act of 1995 set out two statutory purposes for a national park in England and Wales: “To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage” of an area, and “promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of national parks by the public”. In Scotland the aims of national parks also include conserving the natural and cultural heritage of an area, and promoting sustainable use of natural resources and the economic and social development of local communities. So why not apply these principles to a major city?
Urban areas cover approximately three per cent of the world as a whole, and seven per cent of the UK. They are a distinct habitat that, in the case of large cities, can stretch across entire landscapes. As you’d expect, our largest, most diverse, most complex and influential of these habitats is to be found in London. Covering around 1,600km2 it’s larger in area than the Peak District, and it’s not just home to 8.6 million Homo sapiens.
It doesn’t matter how often I spot a red fox, my heart skips a beat every time. I see them a lot where I live in Hanwell, west London. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the capital is the most species-rich region of the UK. The
human population shares the city with almost as many trees as there are people, and over 13,000 other species. Peregrine falcons launch attacks from the Houses of Parliament, stag beetles breed in Nunhead Cemetery and endangered black redstarts make the most of the current surge in green roofs.
Ever since the Romans arrived nearly 2,000 years ago, the people in this corner of Britain have been conserving, enhancing and enjoying an urban natural and cultural heritage. National, regional and local government policy, royal decrees, investments by progressive Victorians and hundreds of years of everyday grass roots activity by thousands of organisations and millions of Londoners have resulted in the capital being one of the greenest cities in the world for its size. Although domestic buildings occupy only a small percentage of London, 47 per cent is made up of gardens, parks, woods and meadows, and a further 2.5 per cent is rivers, canals and reservoirs. All-in-all there are 3,000 parks, 30,000 allotments, four UNESCO World Heritage Sites, 37 Sites of Special Scientific Interest, 142 local nature reserves, and 3.8 million gardens.
According to National Parks UK, there are 113,000 national parks and similarly protected areas around the world, representing every major kind of terrestrial habitat apart from one: a major city. Sure, there are ‘urban national parks’ inside, around and beside cities, such as the Rouge National Urban Park in Canada, but as yet no national park directly acknowledges the value of the entire city. Why? Why be prejudiced against the habitat that most of the world’s population is closest to and has the power to influence?
A city’s landscape is very different from a rainforest, just as rainforest is very different from moorland, desert or mangrove. But it is no less important, it’s just distinctively different. At a time when the Earth’s rapidly urbanising population is becoming increasingly dislocated from nature, it surely cannot be right to promote psychological, political and ecological boundaries that may unintentionally alienate urban dwellers from investing in and protecting wildlife, not just on their doorstep but internationally.
I’m not proposing that London should be designated as a national park as it stands within current legislation, nor that it should have any formal planning powers. But it should be declared a National Park City. This new kind of national park would be a close cousin to the UK’s established national parks, but with its own distinct status. We should, as Paul Hamblin, executive director of National Parks England says: “Focus on the similarities and opportunities this idea presents - and not be blinded by the differences.”
The purpose of making London a National Park City would be to improve life for people and wildlife in the capital and beyond. It would do this by working with Londoners to make the urban area both more enjoyable to live in and physically, ecologically,
IT MAY SEEM COUNTERINTUITIVE, BUT LONDON IS THE MOST SPECIESRICH REGION OF THE UK.
culturally, emotionally, psychologically and economically greener and wilder, both in quality and scale. Currently 47 per cent of London is physically green, and one aim is to make that figure 51 per cent and to radically improve ecological connectivity and species richness. Another is to connect 100 per cent of London’s children to nature.
And this is not just about London. Having walked across all of the UK’s cities I have seen many strong candidates for following soon after: Glasgow, Swansea and Bristol are just three great cities that spring to mind.
Just imagine a future where growing up, living in, enjoying and contributing to your city as a National Park City is part of the next generation of children’s collective identity, outlook and pride. There are already millions of people and thousands of organisations doing significant things across London and other UK cities, but not all of these successes are spread evenly and, in some cases, they are simply not delivering the change that is needed quickly enough. There is the space and expertise to make something extraordinary happen in London, but more capacity, investment and local leadership is needed.
A National Park City movement would be independent from, but work with, government, businesses, charities and groups across the capital. One of the things that would distinguish this from a traditional national park would be the millions of people who will live inside it and their collective power to contribute towards it. Architect Sir Terry Farrell has described the movement as “one vision to inspire a million projects”, explaining that it’s “a large-scale and longterm vision that’s achievable through lots of small and achievable actions”. The role of the National Park City would be to inspire and support these actions not just across the green, blue and open spaces, but the entire built-up environment.
According to the State of Nature Report 2016, nationally one in seven species is at risk of extinction. The majority of citydwellers have the power not just to protect life, but actually allow it, invite it, and grow it in their own neighbourhoods. While debates about city trees tend to focus on public spaces, more than half of London’s trees are in private ownership. It is arguably those spaces where there is both the greatest risk of decline and the opportunity for new growth.
Similarly, there are more than 300,000 homes at risk of flooding in London. While a quarter of London’s footprint is domestic gardens, it’s estimated that a third of these are now paved over. Replacing this paving with greener and wilder spaces would not only reduce the likelihood and severity of flooding, potentially saving Londoners billions of pounds, but also make the landscape better for wildlife. Again, while politicians and government agencies influence decisionmaking in the public space, a National Park City would be a powerful way to influence changes in private areas.
Research has also shown that one in seven of the capital’s children has not visited a natural environment, not even a park, in the last year. Spending time exploring, playing and learning outdoors is not only an important part of a healthy childhood, it also increases the likelihood of those youngsters caring for nature in the future.
The potential for something truly transformative to happen is very real. Judy Ling Wong is honorary president of the Black Environment Network and a trustee of the charitable foundation that is being established to make this initiative a success. “The National Park City intends to pay attention to every bit of space, and continually ratchet it up so that more and more the whole city is in the presence of nature,” she says. “Many council estates actually have more green space than all the local parks and gardens, but
REPLACING PAVING WITH GREENER AND WILDER SPACES WOULD MAKE THE LANDSCAPE BETTER FOR WILDLIFE.
they’re of the lowest quality. There are acres and acres and they’re right outside the most disadvantaged groups’ windows. Imagine what we can do with that, by changing the atmosphere, and getting social landlords to be inspired by this whole idea of creating green space that allows people to have true contact with wild nature.”
Making London a National Park City will not only bring new investment into Greater London, but would create what the IUCN calls an “urban gateway” that would have the potential to benefit national parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other protected areas in the UK. Visitors to this country, perhaps through a new protected areas’ Visitor Centre in the heart of London, would be encouraged to travel beyond the city to enjoy some of the country’s most incredible landscapes. Simultaneously, the National Park City would work to inspire Londoners to visit, invest in and learn from our national parks. The economist Andrew Simms has argued that, “making London a National Park City will root the home of government and finance in ecology, just as we must all things.” Wouldn’t that be a powerful thing?
Developed following three consultations, crowdfunded by 347 individuals and organisations, and published in 2015, the National Park City proposal makes clear that under current legislation a city cannot become a national park. But the idea is not for London to become a national park or for a change in legislation.
Instead what the proposal sets out is a working definition for a National Park City as: “A large urban area that is managed and semi-protected through both formal and informal means to enhance the natural capital of its living landscape. A defining feature is the widespread and significant commitment of residents, visitors and decision-makers to allow natural processes to provide a foundation for a better quality of life for wildlife and people.”
As Trevor Sandwith, director of the Global Protected Areas Programme for the IUCN said at an event at London’s Royal Festival Hall in September: “This could be something that transforms the way that societies think about themselves in the future...”
As there is no precedent for creating a National Park City, through consultation it was decided that if the Mayor of London, London Assembly and two-thirds of London’s electoral ward teams (436 of 654) declared their support this would be a sufficient political mandate to declare the capital the first National Park City and establish an independent organisation to make it effective. So far the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, and 210 ward teams have declared their support, which is nearly half of the campaign’s target.
With a fair wind, London could have decided to become a National Park City soon and we may see a big leap forward in promoting the welfare of urban wildlife.