‘We don't call them woolly maggots': how wildlife campaigners put sheep at heart of rewilding plans
Woolly maggots, nature-destroyers – sheep are criticised by many conservationists for denuding Britain's uplands of rare plants and trees.
So The Wildlife Trusts were shocked when they were compelled to buy 4,000 sheep as part of the biggest land restoration project in England.
The flock were part of the deal to buy the first 'big chunk' of the 3,850-hectare (9,500-acre) Rothbury estate last autumn, the largest land sale in England for 30 years. How they are going to be managed, alongside the charity's plans to replenish nature on the estate, has put the spotlight on critical questions about the future of upland sheep farming.
In what is The Wildlife Trusts' biggest ever land purchase and fundraising challenge, in partnership with Northumberland Wildlife Trust, has so far raised nearly 25% of its £30m target to complete the purchase of the whole estate, which will become a haven for curlew, merlins, cuckoos and red squirrels.
However, boosting nature on the estate will be a balancing act, with the trusts – keen to work with local farmers – vowing that sheep and other grazing animals will continue to play a role.
'The Wildlife Trusts are not against sheep,' said Rob Stoneman, director of nature recovery at The Wildlife Trusts. 'We don't call them woolly maggots. Pretty much every wildlife trust owns sheep and uses them for essential conservation work, particularly where we have short-cropped grass [for certain rare species].'
Work has already begun to restore nature on the newly bought section. The trusts insist they are not abandoning farming but will use regenerative techniques to retain open landscapes that many declining bird species depend upon. In doing so, they hope to offer a new model for the uplands of profitable, nature-friendly farming.
Guided by the stockman who has long managed the flock on the hilly, western part of the estate that the trusts have bought, they are slowly reducing the number of sheep while adding new cattle to the grazing community.
They include Casanova, an appropriately named red Luing bull charged with increasing the herd of 100 cattle on the Simonside Hills. The Luing is an extremely hardy breed well suited to extreme conditions. Casanova, from nearby Peebles, and his offspring's grazing and trampling will help manage grasslands to ensure an abundance of songbirds, while beef will provide income for the trust.
According to Stoneman, swaths of uplands have been degraded, particularly after the system of 'headage payments' in the 1970s, 80s and 90s incentivised land managers to put too many sheep on to the hills. Although flock sizes have fallen since then, they are still higher than they were in the 1940s and 50s.
But the future looks grim for upland sheep farming: trade quotas which historically restricted foreign lamb sold in Britain are being phased out post-Brexit, public appetite for lamb is declining, and most sheep farms depend on rapidly disappearing agricultural subsidies.
Stoneman said negative future scenarios for British upland farming include widespread land abandonment, as witnessed in central Spain and Portugal, or family farms being dissolved into vast New Zealand-style ranches.
'Neither outcomes are good for the people who live, work and prosper in these uplands. At Rothbury we can try and model out a just transition for upland farming,' he said. 'If we bring cattle back into the landscape we know that's good for nature but it might be more profitable as well.'
Another fear among many upland residents is landowners turning hillsides into dense stands of non-native plantation forestry, which could be as bad for biodiversity as too many sheep. If the trusts do not raise the rest of the £30m required, the remainder of the estate could still be bought by commercial forestry interests.
'If we didn't buy it, that's probably the future for the Rothbury estate,' said Stoneman. 'That's catastrophic. Once land use is changed to sitka spruce, and split up, that opportunity for nature restoration at scale, and joining up land, is lost for ever.'
Baseline monitoring on the part of Rothbury now under the charity's care is the first step to transform it into a nature-rich mosaic of boggy moorland, woodland and meadows. Grouse moorland that has historically been burned and drained will be returned to boggy, carbon sinks, while scrub and trees will be allowed to regenerate on grassland, creating a wood pasture, which will be kept from turning into shady forest by cattle.
'Our vision is gradual change but in five years' time you'll start to see the difference – it's putting nature at the centre of the estate,' said Mike Pratt, chief executive of Northumberland Wildlife Trust, who is heartened by local backing for the Wildlife Trusts' purchase of Rothbury.
'The enthusiasm and support has been breathtaking,' he said. The Women's Institute in Rothbury is raising funds and two local crafters have raised £900 in two months through the sale of their needle-felt decorations.
'Lots of local people are very excited and energised by helping to restore nature in the area,' said crafter Lydia Nixon. 'There's so much potential for the River Coquet too – and the hills are just magical.'
Pratt said he was hopeful that alongside the local fundraising, talks with businesses, philanthropists and funding foundations will help raise the rest of the target. '£30m is a lot of money but it will only buy you a new roundabout in Newcastle,' he said. 'We've undervalued nature as a society and we've got to put nature back into health and it costs money. But in the bigger scheme of things it's not that much.'
Some farmers, including the tenant farmer on the trusts' newly acquired land, are supportive of the charity's vision although Pratt admitted that there were concerns about the potential loss of food production.
'We can have food productivity and nature, and this is a better use of marginal land,' he said. 'Northumberland is the best place, the only place in England, where we can really restore nature at a landscape scale.
'If we don't restore nature here, where can we do it? We need to push the envelope and honour this landscape. To restore this for nature and for people's benefit is just a thrill.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
3 days ago
- Times
Now Nigel Farage needs some Five Star thinking
There will never be enough space in a single column — or one newspaper — to recount the long list of dreamers, ideologues and eccentrics crushed beneath the ploughshare of Nigel Farage's ambition. So let's focus on 11 of them and come to Zia Yusuf later. In the spring of 2019, as Ukip descended to uncharted depths of chaos and extremism, its former leader hit the phones and charmed his colleagues in the European parliament. 'Join the Brexit Party,' he told them. 'You'll be guaranteed a seat.' Thirteen of them did. A few weeks later, when Farage unveiled the slate of candidates that won the European elections at a canter and finished Theresa May, only two were present. The Brexit Party promised to 'change politics for good'. The unlucky 11 did not expect that mission to start with their careers. Casual cruelty is the very stuff of party politics. Here, it also had an unarguable logic. 'We had to be different,' Richard Tice, Farage's deputy, later told the biographer Michael Crick, 'and be seen to be different.' Six years on, Reform UK is a clear first in every opinion poll, is even a viable force in Scotland and is regarded by Sir Keir Starmer, quite rightly, as his chief opponent at the next election. Yet its leadership is grappling with that same strategic question. Until this week, all the evidence suggested Reform is different: different from the Brexit Party, different from Ukip and different from every other passing challenge to a party system many British voters now detest. Reform's electoral base is different, for a start. Running for the Labour leadership in 2015, Jeremy Corbyn predicted that non-voters would do something unprecedented and come to the ballot box for socialism. He was right about the appetite for something different but the polls tell us it is Farage who now motivates the chronically disengaged. But the biggest difference of all is how Reform has done it. There is no Limehouse Declaration, very little detailed policy and — like Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom — only one member who really matters. 'He's got this far,' says one Farage intimate, 'on vibes alone.' Those vibes are the new zeitgeist of this divided country — or at least half of it. It is much more than a dislike of Starmer or contempt for the Conservative Party. This is a rejection of politics itself: the aloofness, the arid argot of platitude and cliche, the rotating cast of graduates who look and sound the same. Farage's voters think, with some justification, the mainstream has proven itself incapable of exercising even the most basic functions of liberal democracy, be that protecting bank balances or borders. Labour MPs know this only too well from doorstep rounds that now resemble Orwell's Two Minutes Hate. Even if the Tories turn to the viral influencer Robert Jenrick, their path to relevance remains too narrow for comfort. How different can Farage afford to be? Reform has got this far by rejecting the old strictures of British party culture. Its payroll is a tenth of Labour's, which has around 400 staff. Yusuf, the multimillionaire tech entrepreneur, ruled Reform's HQ at Millbank Tower with an iron fist over 18-hour days. Sackings came almost as readily as electoral triumphs, disgruntled juniors complained of micromanagement, no spokesman uttered a word without his licence and every decision he took was inevitably met with a chorus of online racism. Now, after weeks of backbiting, bitter briefing and an unseemly public row with Sarah Pochin, the new Reform MP who chose to use her first question to the prime minister to demand a burqa ban, he has quit. The upshot is that Reform now looks uncomfortably similar to the old Farage parties, though for once the quitter has not fallen out with Nigel but everyone else. The departed chairman had more influence than any member. Indeed, until last year, in conscious homage to Wilders, there were none. Now there are 235,000 but they enjoy no meaningful power. Over the summer, I'm told, they will finally elect three representatives to Farage's party board but the leader and his appointees will enjoy a permanent majority. Then there is policy, which Westminster assumes is a necessary precondition for political success. That which exists amounts to an offer we would recognise from the Continent: the hard line on migration and generosity on welfare is the meat and bread of Europe's radical right. But beyond that are vast expanses of empty space. Fellow travellers who submit well-intentioned policy papers to Reform HQ find themselves confronting a wall of silence. Convention dictates that this will all fall apart before the next election, unsteady under the weight of its own costs and contradictions — and, even before Yusuf's hasty exit, that is precisely what Downing Street was betting on. But Farage does not do convention. We would not know his name if he did. After his success in last month's local elections, the leading man is now considering demands to hire a supporting cast, a credible shadow chancellor — an economist or another tycoon — to help cost his expensive policies and attack Rachel Reeves on the economy. These have taken on new urgency after Yusuf's abrupt departure. Who are they going to put on television, for one? The conventional route would be to declare that refugees are welcome and invite disgruntled Tories to flesh out his team. Suella Braverman's husband is already a Reform member. Surely a former home secretary would be a statement of intent? Jacob Rees-Mogg insists he is a Tory to his fingertips. But could he be tempted? These, I am told, are precisely the wrong questions. Defectors seeking asylum should look elsewhere. As Tice said in 2019, Reform strategists want to look different — and know they must be seen to be different, too. No party is spoken of with such reverence within Farage's inner circle as Italy's Five Star Movement, alongside whose MEPs he once sat in Brussels. Led by the comedian Beppe Grillo and powered by the internet, they broke the Italian party system and circumvented a media largely controlled by Silvio Berlusconi. One of their innovations was to present their ministers, most of whom were not political insiders, to the electorate well ahead of time. There may be 1,532 days until the next general election, as one weary Farage adviser told me this week, and what's left of Reform's leadership is reluctant to play Westminster's game. But on this week's evidence, a credible shadow cabinet from outside politics may well be what is needed to show they can still do things differently. Proving Farage can build a serious team, like that Italian comedian, may be the only thing that stops them becoming a joke.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- The Guardian
Politics can destroy relationships – just ask Sarah Vine and Michael Gove
The intrusion of politics into personal relationships has been an eagerly documented feature of the Trump-Brexit era, which this week found its perfect expression: a granular account of the end of the marriage between Sarah Vine and Michael Gove. You may think, as I did, you're not interested in this, but hold up. A recent excerpt in the Daily Mail from How Not to Be a Political Wife, Vine's forthcoming memoir, contained not only the suggestion that Brexit ruined their marriage, but that a key trigger in its collapse was Andrea Leadsom's political manoeuvring. Has Andrea Leadsom ruined any of your relationships? It is certainly a question worth asking. Or more broadly: do people really break up with each other because of big-P politics? In the case of Vine/Gove – which sounds like a tortured play at the National that, despite the playwright's best hopes, never transferred to the screen – it's a complicated picture. This wasn't a separation brought on by opposing views about Europe, but rather, in Vine's account, by the stress caused when her husband backed Brexit and drove a wedge between the couple and their pro-European friends and colleagues. Brexit broke their marriage but only because it put in motion a train of events that ended in David Cameron standing down, Leadsom scuppering Boris Johnson's first run for top office, Theresa May becoming prime minister, and, ultimately, Gove losing his cabinet position. This isn't how most of us experience politics, which is to say with a sense of immediate, personal jeopardy. Still, when Vine writes 'politics had infected every aspect of our lives – and it caused untold damage', refers to 'BB (Before Brexit) friends' and suggests huffily 'I don't know Andrea Leadsom and have nothing against her, so I'm not 100% sure why she effectively became the touchpaper by which Michael set fire to the Boris leadership campaign and thereby, eventually, to our lives together', you get the gist of a household in which conflict organised itself around a single political moment. This is recognisable. I've just read Elizabeth Strout's latest novel, Tell Me Everything, in which, returning to her usual setting in Maine, she suggests it is entirely possible to sit on a bench in the sun and chat pleasantly to a friend who voted for Trump, except when that friend meets a man online who deepens her delusions about immigrants and how food banks are exploited by people too lazy to work – and then friendship across the divide doesn't work. When the novelists give up, you have to worry. In reality, of course, the political issues that have caused the most friendship breaks recently have been neither Trump nor Brexit, two causes so clearly defined between left and right that few of those from one camp were pre-existing friends with the other, but rather Israel/Palestine and gender. I was just in New York, where a friend said with something like shellshock that half her social group isn't speaking to the other because of opposing views on the Middle East. In these fights between friends, every shred of evidence is marshalled against one another so that 'we disagree on this subject' becomes 'she was always like this', before advancing, inevitably, to 'she's a lunatic'. Some political disputes are just that, of course, while others ennoble a personal beef that's been going in the friendship for some time. Anyway, back to Vine and her memoir, to which we come for the political gossip and stay for the kabuki-style prose, in which Vine toggles between a what-are-men-like eye-roll and a seemingly genuine loathing for her ex-husband. 'Michael had repeatedly told the nation that he'd never run for leadership,' she writes at one point, suggesting a relationship between Gove and 'the nation' that might come as news to the nation. Mostly it provides us with insight into the weirdness of other people's marriages, a worthy distraction in these fraught times. 'I think better when I've written things down,' recalls Vine, 'so, before Michael was up that Monday, I wrote an email to him that clarified my thoughts.' Do you write your partner summary strategy emails and then inadvertently send them to a PR called Henry, who is different to the Henry you meant to send them to but unfortunately you exist in a milieu in which all the men are called Henry, and this wrong Henry leaks it to the press? A story worth the cover price alone. Towards the end of the excerpt we discover that, as is often the case when people fall out over politics, Brexit is a proxy for more quotidian and depressing dynamics. The Goves are moving house and, in Vine's telling, her husband does precisely bugger all to help. 'Michael opened up his briefcase, removed a couple of books, kicked off his shoes and repaired to his side of the bed to read them … Mum and I did everything – and I do mean everything. I was incredibly upset.' Division of labour, mental load, a man who lets his wife and her mother create a home for him while he focuses on more important things – a marriage done in not by Brexit, perhaps, but still politics. Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist
Glasgow Times
4 days ago
- Glasgow Times
Glaswegians urged to help shape new green strategy
Environmental Standards Scotland (ESS) has launched a public consultation on its five-year draft strategy, with the aim of gathering feedback from organisations and members of the public in Glasgow and beyond. ESS, which took over the environmental oversight role previously held by the European Union following Brexit, was established in October 2021 to ensure environmental laws and standards are adhered to in Scotland. Read more: Ancelotti to Rangers talks 'break down' after meeting as Russell Martin path cleared Investigators continue to scour abandoned buildings in search for Madeleine McCann Body found in search for Glasgow man missing in Portugal Mark Roberts, chief executive of ESS, said: "This consultation will enable us to refine our final strategy, which will be submitted to the Scottish Parliament for approval later this year. "Environmental law directly and indirectly impacts every resident, business and community in Glasgow, so we're keen to hear from as wide a range of people and groups as possible. "I would encourage anyone with an interest in our work to take part." The draft strategy outlines how ESS will monitor compliance of public bodies in Scotland with environmental law, assess its effectiveness, and prioritise areas for scrutiny. It also includes an updated vision, new strategic objectives, and ESS's proposed response to recommendations from Scottish Ministers following a government review of environmental governance. An online consultation session will be held on June 19, giving residents the chance to hear directly from Mr Roberts and other ESS staff about the draft strategy and to ask questions. The final document will be submitted to the Scottish Parliament later this year. ESS's first strategy, covering 2022 to 2025, led to investigations into compliance with environmental law in areas such as air quality, wrasse fishing, and the management of special protection areas for birds. The organisation also examined the effectiveness of environmental law on issues including storm overflows, marine litter, and soil protection. The consultation is open until August 29.
