17 November
Dear Sajid Javid,
The coronavirus pandemic of the past two years brought several deep societal issues to the forefront of public conversation. For many, it crystallised problems that had previously seemed intangible, shining light on failing healthcare systems, inequality, the role of welfare, and growing mistrust towards scientific consensus. However, along with this raised public discontent, there has been a growing appreciation for other aspects of society that may have been taken advantage of in the past. The role of nature and the land in helping with mental and physical health is but one example that’s been gaining increasing recognition, and the one I’d like to garner your support for in this letter. Natural areas and green spaces became places of refuge during the first lockdown, and having access to them was a blessing; the forests and fields of the English countryside provide benefits to their visitors that far outweigh those of our concrete jungles. It is safe to say that people have a renewed respect for our countryside because of the pandemic and I believe that such appreciation is representative of a far wider, but subtler, demand within our society: one for the land.
Half of all England is possessed by just 25,000 landowners, less than 1% of the population. The largest two groups here are the aristocracy, having controlled it for hundreds and hundreds of years (and still owning over a third), and corporations, many of them off-shore [1]. Moreover, only about 10% of the land is legally accessible to the public. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW) has made leaps and bounds in establishing freedom to roam on “open country” —mountain, moor, heath and down— or registered common land since 2000 [2]. I would posit that this foundation doesn’t stretch far enough into opening our country’s land for the many, not the few. The act still excludes the vast majority of our country’s fields, pastures, and forests, and so our nation remains blocked from within to anyone who wants to experience its majesty in full. With concern about mental health on the rise [3], along with our government’s persistent struggle to effectively tackle the obesity crisis [4], I believe it to be actively detrimental to stop the public from making use of this country’s landscape in a recreational manner. A policy reversing the damaging precedent of the past would be inexpensive to implement, and is one of the first steps that needs to be taken in order to address the aforementioned issues. At a time where strain on the NHS is high, we need to look for measures which tackle the root of our health problems so that the greatest cost-reductions can be made.
To clarify here, I’m not advocating for the free use of people’s gardens and homes. There’s a major difference between the necessary private sanctuaries that provide us with our own personal space and the sprawling thousand-acre estates owned by the country’s wealthiest. Nor is private ownership itself the issue, but the fact that the public are unconditionally barred from making use of something as vital to our health and culture as land strikes me as a grave mistake on the part of our leaders.
The boons of the legislation I’m suggesting are diverse and numerous: allowing people broader access to nature has immense environmental, health, and social benefits. While it’s commonly stated and universally accepted that getting time outside in the fresh air is beneficial for both mental and physical health, our actions don’t necessarily reflect this. Medical evidence on the subject has been present for years; modern science suggests that spending time in nature is a powerful reliever of stress and leads to a reduction in cortisol levels, decreases the risk of depression, increases memory and attention-spans, and leads to a general quality of life increase [5]. When it comes to physical health, green spaces not only facilitate exercise and help reduce obesity rates, but can even boost immune systems. This is due to the fact that trees release phycenotides, chemicals that protect them from germs and insects, which may protect us too if inhaled [6]. Air pollution also dramatically decreases in green spaces, most significantly in areas of woodland, which has a wide array of positive health effects [7].
If these advantages are true, then what crucial activity are the majority of private woodlands used for instead? It can, unfortunately, be largely put down to one slightly pathetic cause: pheasant shooting. Annually, 35 million partridge and pheasant are released into our country’s estates for the enjoyment of the aristocracy. Mark Avery, the author of Inglorious (a book that looks at the terrible effect grouse shooting has on the environment and local communities), estimates that only 5,000 individuals across the entire country engage in such activities. With less than 0.01% of the population making use of it, why is so much of our land devoted solely to this outdated pastime? It reeks of inequality.
The need for the public use of this land stretches far further than just health and recreation. It’s also about education. As an example, “Forest Schools” are becoming increasingly prevalent in primary education due to their ability to counteract a lot of the developmental deficiencies caused by an increasing reliance on social media. This loss was only exacerbated by multiple lockdowns and missed schooling. Social skills, communication, and confidence are reported to develop more easily here as it facilitates unstructured play in a stimulating woodland environment. Young children are also taught about the important role the environment has to play in our lives, its systems and structures, and why protecting and conserving it is so necessary. One of the concerns many have over furthering “Right to Roam” laws is that environmental degradation would occur: people would leave crisp packets and plastic bottles in what would once have been a pristine natural environment. Education is a remedy towards this and yet it’s certainly lacking. The government has spent less than £1 million on teaching people about the “countryside code” and their responsibilities to others since it was created in 2004, no wonder so little care is taken. By opening-up our countryside and encouraging education to occur here as well as just recreation, we can foster a broader understanding and respect for it. It is undoubtedly unfair to cut people off from experiencing nature and then expect them to have fostered a sense of care towards it having had relatively little exposure. Education and respect for the environment amongst the populus is essential if we’re to avert Climate Change and its disastrous consequences —a problem that only becomes more apparent with every passing year.
Evidently, we need to actively construct a greener society through the creation and incorporation of natural spaces into cities. As it stands, though, the broader, further-reaching, and ultimately cheaper part of the solution is opening up more of Britain’s land for public access. The Green Belt for example, while largely made up of pastures and cropland, covers 13% of England and is the most immediately accessible countryside to over 30 million people [8], yet so much of it is still blocked from common use. The template to model our changes on already exists just over the border. In 2003, Scotland’s “Land Reform Act” made the “Right to Roam” one of the basic freedoms its citizens could enjoy [9]. This piece of legislation recognised the importance of the nation’s land in uniting people together and creating communities, as well as the culture and heritage it is so intrinsically linked to. The decision was ultimately made that it was unfair, given the significance land has, to lock it away out of reach of the vast majority of people. Private ownership of land was superseded by the public’s “Right to Roam” on it. With a few exceptions, all types of land were made available to the public for recreational and educational use. Non-motorised vehicles were allowed anywhere; wild camping was legalised and is now more popular than ever. With these newfound freedoms, the Scottish Government was careful to implement regulations to protect property and the intention of these laws. They’ve also invested in making sure the public properly understands them and can behave accordingly. Access to buildings and domestic gardens is obviously not included in the right, nor is fixed machinery, tents, or anything that provides people with shelter. Active cropland, quarries, construction sites, and school grounds aren’t open access, nor are locations that request paid entrance. Camping must be done discreetly -no loud music, no trace left- and one cannot stay in the same place for more than three nights. Dogs must be kept under control at all times and on leads while near animals and throughout the nesting season. Lastly, landowners have a responsibility to “use and manage land responsibly” and facilitate public use: it is now unlawful to place obstructions that stop people from exploring the country.
I would argue that there are sufficient regulations here to prevent destructive use of the land by members of the public (with more to be included with the introduction of new legislation). A key point that my proposal raises though is that it’s unjust to preemptively punish people by blocking them from land for the crime of “potentially causing damage”. Vandalism is a crime to be taken as seriously as any other, but providing a collective punishment for actions that haven’t happened yet goes against so much that our country would otherwise stand for. As seen in the Scottish example, the vast majority of people are very respectful towards the land of others’. There is of course the odd case of indiscreet camping, damage, or large-scale littering, but these are exceptional and rare occurrences when put relative to how many use it. The frequency of damage happening here is hardly high enough to justify a blanket ban on all but a tenth of our country’s land and it’s wrong to make everybody pay for the actions of a few.
I wish to make one more point on a more personal level. I have benefitted immensely from growing up with acres of open land on my doorstep. I only turned 16 earlier this year, but I’ve lived almost all my life in the suburbs of East Oxford. Crucially, I’ve had Shotover Country Park just up the road for as long as I can remember. This 240 acre wood is an incredibly important location for everyone in the surrounding villages and it provided a safe haven and a getaway to all who lived nearby during lockdown ; the forest was bustling with more people, dogs, children, and families than I’ve ever seen it hold throughout the summer months of 2020. I’ve spent hundreds if not thousands of hours navigating the forest’s many hills and valleys, adventuring down the hidden deer tracks with my labrador (also proven to have a positive effect on mental health), climbing trees and making rope swings that carry you out over a green carpet of ferns and bracken. While I haven’t joined them in quite some time, local teenagers have devoted countless summers to developing part of the woods into a mountain biking area. Dirt jumps and tracks are dotted everywhere in their chosen corner and it’s become a communal ground for them as much as a sporting one (last summer they established a fire pit and a tarp so that they could still meet up on a rainy day). Something that always makes me laugh to see are the trails of flour you’ll find dotted mysteriously along the paths. This is the work of children playing raucous games of “Fox and Hound”, along with hide and seek, capture the flag, and tag. Anyone who says that “kids and teenagers don’t know what it’s like to play outdoors anymore” clearly hasn’t visited this park on a sunny day, but I take it as evidence that the “outside world” is still very popular with those fortunate enough to live close to it. I also refuse to accept that the idyllic stories of childhood exploration and adventure that my grandparents have so fondly recounted are now a thing of yesteryear. Why does this obvious source of adolescent joy have to remain so undiscovered by the “Social Media Generation”? Instead I acknowledge that it’s harder to get people to leave their devices at home for a few hours, and that I’m one of only a lucky few people my age to currently have access to nature on such a great scale. I see this policy though, and all the additional ideas and initiatives that may spring from it, as an important development that must be made to improve the wellbeing of our nation.
I conclude then with a request: please see the benefits that liberating this land could have for the population. Young people and future generations serve to gain vast amounts from it - as well as countless adults. England’s green and pleasant land should be unlocked for all to see and wonder over, not compartmentalised and held as the stomping ground for only our wealthy elite to enjoy. The social benefits are huge, the health benefits even greater, and the cost (even when taken out of context of such gains) is minute.
Thank you for your consideration.
References:
1. “Who owns England?” - Guy Shrubsole
2. Open access land: management, rights and responsibilities
3. Mental health
4. Statistics on Obesity, Physical Activity and Diet, England, 2020
5. The Science Behind How Nature Affects Your Health
6. The Claim: Exposure to Plants and Parks Can Boost Immunity (Published 2010)
7. Human Health and Sustainable Forest Management
8. The State of the Green Belt
9. Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003
Dexter Twycross
Dexter Twycross